[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

Superfast Broadband

Kevin Hollinrake: What plans his Department has to ensure universal provision of fast or superfast broadband.

Kelly Tolhurst: What plans his Department has to ensure universal provision of fast or superfast broadband.

John Whittingdale: By the end of 2017, 95% of homes and businesses in the United Kingdom will have access to superfast broadband. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last month, by the end of this Parliament people will have a legal right to request a broadband connection, no matter where they live. We will be consulting on these plans, which will put access to broadband on a similar footing with other basic services early next year.

Kevin Hollinrake: I welcome the universal service obligation to provide 10 megabits of coverage to the whole country by 2020. Point-to-point wireless can provide a solution today up to 30 megabits, but the organisations behind those facilities will not invest because state aid will one day bring fibre to those communities and take away their customers. Can Ministers provide a solution to this important conundrum?

John Whittingdale: I commend my hon. Friend on his advocacy for his constituents on the importance of achieving superfast broadband as quickly as possible. The universal service obligation will provide a safety net, but it will take some time to work out the details. In the meantime, we would welcome all the alternative suppliers putting forward their solution. It may well be that different solutions will be appropriate for different places.

Kelly Tolhurst: Some parts of my constituency such as central Rochester, the peninsula and the businesses in Chatham historic dockyard have been suffering from poor fibre-optic broadband coverage from BT for too long. Much-needed upgrades were supposed to be in place from December last year, yet we are having to wait until the 2016-17 financial year at the earliest. What can the Minister do to stop broadband companies from dragging their heels so that all residents and businesses can enjoy the services that they ought to have?

John Whittingdale: I fully appreciate the wish of my hon. Friend that her constituents should have access to superfast broadband as soon as possible. We are making extremely good progress on phase 2. We have already passed an extra 3.3 million premises, and that will rise to 4 million by early 2016. By the end of phase 2, we expect to have achieved 97% coverage in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We will then work hard on the remaining small number of houses, which will have the possibility of the universal service obligation to rely on.

Albert Owen: Those of us who are long and strong advocates of universal service welcome the Government’s U-turn on this matter. Only a few weeks ago, I was told by the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy that this was not possible, and it was not Government policy. I will be taking part in the consultation, but will there be any new Government money from the UK, the Welsh Government or the European Union?

John Whittingdale: I would be extremely surprised if that was what my hon. Friend said, as he has been a leading advocate of the universal service obligation policy, which will benefit all the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, just as it will every other household in the country. The precise details of how the universal service obligation will work are still to be worked out, and that will obviously include how it will be paid for, and we shall be consulting on that over the coming year.

Margaret Ritchie: Given the report that was published this week by Ofcom, which illustrated the differences in broadband speed in Northern Ireland and the fact that Northern Ireland has 73% coverage compared with 88% in the rest of the United Kingdom, what action will the Secretary of State and his officials take to address this matter?

John Whittingdale: I believe that the Ofcom report showed different possible causes for slower broadband, including, I am told, Christmas fairy lights. That is why it is making available an app to measure the speed of wi-fi. I can tell the hon. Lady that in Northern Ireland we expect that by the end of the superfast broadband project 87% of homes and businesses will be covered. The Northern Ireland Government have received £11.4 million from Broadband Delivery UK for the project.
	18 [902546].

Jack Lopresti: In some easily accessible areas in my constituency superfast broadband is extremely economically viable; BT has received a huge amount of subsidy since 2010. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this is unacceptable and will he meet me to see what we can do to get this right and solve the problem of accessibility?

John Whittingdale: We are making good progress, as I have already mentioned. We are optimistic—indeed, confident—that we will achieve the 95% target by the end of 2017. That still leaves some difficult areas. I will, of course, be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what more we can do to ensure that all his constituents can benefit from superfast broadband.

Rob Marris: What steps is the Secretary of State taking with other Departments to enforce broadband speeds? These questions are about superfast broadband, but what constitutes “superfast” on the ground, as it were, is a matter of great dispute. Many providers say that they provide speeds of “up to” a certain number. What enforcement steps is he taking?

John Whittingdale: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s concern that advertised speeds are not delivered in practice. We talk regularly with Ofcom about that matter. Ofcom is carrying out detailed research and, as I mentioned earlier, making available an application that will allow consumers to test whether they are achieving those speeds. The universal service obligation, to which the question refers, that is coming into place will require all providers to be able to supply at least 10 megabits —the speed that Ofcom currently assesses as necessary for someone to be able to enjoy most normal applications.

Chi Onwurah: Five years after abandoning Labour’s universal service commitment and having delayed his own super-slow crawl-out at least three times without proper consultation with either Ofcom or the industry, the Prime Minister magics a universal service obligation out of thin air. The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, with whom I have the deepest sympathy, is forced to pretend that it is part of some strategy that has not been published or even consulted on. The Chancellor, however, is not in on the trick: the comprehensive spending review does not mention the issue once. Does the Minister have any idea of how much the obligation is going to cost—or it just a sop to his Back Benchers whose mailbags are bulging with complaints about broadband?

John Whittingdale: That was a good try by the hon. Lady, but in actual fact we have been making extremely good progress. The superfast scheme has now passed an extra 3.3 million homes and we will achieve 95% by the end of 2017. The universal service obligation is to allow those few remaining households who do not benefit to have a legal right to require broadband. As to the costing, we are in discussion with the industry about that and we will consult on it. We look forward to hearing all inputs to the consultation, including the hon. Lady’s.

Access to Culture and the Arts

Paula Sherriff: What steps he is taking to improve access to culture and the arts for more disadvantaged communities [902529].

Ed Vaizey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for this question about the important issue of improving access to culture and the arts for people from disadvantaged communities. I was delighted with the Chancellor’s autumn statement, which did not cut funding for the arts and heritage. That will be welcomed very much by Labour Front Benchers, who were predicting doom and gloom. There are a number of schemes that help disadvantaged people, but I want to work on the issue for my White Paper in the new year.

Paula Sherriff: The Arts Council will have more than £1.5 billion to support the arts over the next three years. GPS Culture has calculated that 43% of that will be invested in London—a spend of £81, compared with just £19.80 per head for the rest of the country. Frankly, people in Dewsbury, Mirfield and the rest of Yorkshire feel let down. Will the Minister take action to rebalance funding between London and the regions to ensure that everyone, including those from disadvantaged communities, gets access to culture and the arts?

Ed Vaizey: My understanding is that tonight in Dewsbury there will be a fantastic free arts event for families at Crow Nest park funded by the Arts Council. The creative people and places fund targets funding outside London. More than half of the multimillion-pound Grants for the Arts programme goes to a quarter of the most deprived areas in England. The Arts Council is doing a lot. We are doing a lot more than was done under the last Labour Government. We have massively increased the funding that goes outside London, which Labour never addressed.

Philip Hollobone: Last Saturday evening, my family and I attended the Kettering gang show at the Lighthouse theatre in Kettering, organised by the local Kettering scouts. It was a fantastic show. Given that the scouts do so much very good work with boys and girls in disadvantaged communities throughout this country, will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the scout movement for how it encourages young people to get involved in the arts?

Ed Vaizey: I would love to take this opportunity to praise the scout movement and all the volunteers and voluntary organisations that do so much for the arts. Their contribution should not be forgotten; we should not simply look at those organisations that are funded by the Arts Council.

John Nicolson: On the issue of disadvantaged communities and their languages, the Gaelic language is the most endangered in these islands. Why, therefore, in the autumn statement did the Government withdraw their total direct UK funding of £1 million, and can I ask him to reconsider?

Ed Vaizey: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there were two one-off grants in the last Parliament to support that important work, and those contributions have made a valuable difference, but they were not annual grants stretching way back into the past. They were two one-off grants strongly supported by the then Chief Secretary.

Nigel Huddleston: Does the Minister agree that the £40 million commitment from the Discover England fund will also help to promote arts and culture across Britain?

Ed Vaizey: Yes, I do, and it is extremely important that that fund is co-ordinated with the arts and heritage funding that the Chancellor has kept stable for the next five years. If we combine the funding for arts, heritage and tourism, we can generate some meaningful interventions across the UK.

Michael Dugher: The Government’s official annual figures, “Taking Part”, published in July, show a marked decline in the percentage of young children participating in key activities including dance, music, theatre, drama, arts and crafts. In 2010, on average, more than 50% of five to 10-year-olds took part in those activities: it is now just 30%. Is it not the case that under this Government access to arts and culture has undeniably gone backwards, and it is disproportionately disadvantaged communities and working-class kids who lose out the most?

Ed Vaizey: Our museums have never received more visitors and our arts organisations are thriving. Rather than criticising the arts, this is the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity to apologise for the appalling scare- mongering he undertook last month, claiming that the arts would be cut by 30%. He should apologise now at the Dispatch Box.

Michael Dugher: It is an odd request to be asked to apologise for the Government’s figures, but I am more than happy to highlight their poor performance. I shall give him some more figures—not scaremongering, but real figures. Recent research by Ipsos MORI revealed that 70% of children of non-graduate parents spend fewer than three hours a week on cultural activity. That compares with 80% of children of graduate parents who spend more than three hours. Last week’s spending review, which the Minister mentions so much, means that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will face a 5% real-terms cut, and the central grant for local government is being cut by a massive 56%—a £6.1 billion reduction by 2019-20, which is not exactly a cause for a circuit of honour. What assessment has the DCMS made of the impact of local government cuts made by the Government on libraries, museums, galleries and theatres that all rely on local councils?

Ed Vaizey: I take the issue of access to arts by all our communities very seriously, which is why I support all the schemes that the Arts Council is undertaking. But again, the hon. Gentleman can make a difference. He does not have to feel powerless on the Opposition Benches: he can ring up Labour Lancashire now and ask why it is withdrawing all its funding from all its museums.

Broadband Grant Vouchers

Antoinette Sandbach: What assessment his Department has made of the rate of take-up of broadband grant vouchers by small and medium-sized businesses.

Ed Vaizey: I am grateful for the chance to address this important issue, and I am delighted that more than 50,000 firms in the UK have taken advantage of our broadband connection vouchers, as well more than 1,000 public buildings.

Antoinette Sandbach: My constituents in Eddisbury will have connections below the Cheshire average for superfast broadband. What steps can be taken to ensure that Connecting Cheshire will prioritise better superfast broadband access for rural businesses and residents in Eddisbury?

Ed Vaizey: My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for broadband and for her constituency. I am very pleased that almost half of her constituency will benefit from our superfast broadband roll-out—almost 15,000 homes in her constituency have already been passed, but by the time the project is finished more than 30,000 will have been passed.

Neil Carmichael: There will not be many successful business parks where the highway stops short of the park and people have to get out of their cars and walk the rest of the way. Can we apply the same logic to another important highway—broadband—and make sure that business parks are properly connected so that small businesses can thrive and prosper?

Ed Vaizey: There is no reason why business parks should not be part of the superfast broadband roll-out programme. It is also important that business park owners, who charge rents and provide services to their tenants, get on board and ensure their tenants have broadband.

Broadband Universal Service Obligation

Lucy Allan: When he plans for a broadband universal service obligation to be in place.

John Whittingdale: As the Prime Minister announced, people will, by the end of this Parliament, have a legal right to request a broadband connection, no matter where they live, from a designated provider, at a minimum speed, up to a reasonable cost threshold. We will consult on those plans in early 2016.

Lucy Allan: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me and being so patient about my many queries on this issue. Telford residents in the Trench Lock and Lightmoor new-build areas, and residents of historic Ironbridge, tell me that they struggle daily with inadequate broadband. When can they expect the same, increased connectivity as other people across the UK?

John Whittingdale: The Telford and Wrekin project is set to deliver superfast broadband access to 98% of homes and businesses by the end of phase 2 in 2017. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press us to ensure that the few remaining constituents of hers who do not have such access obtain it. From this month, they will have a right to a basic broadband service of 2 megabits per second, and will be able to take advantage of the universal service obligation when it comes into effect.

Michael Tomlinson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but will he assure me that the pace of the roll-out will be increased so that businesses in my constituency, such as Excel Group in Wareham, can have fibre access?

John Whittingdale: We will achieve the 95% target by the end of 2017, when the contractual arrangements we have achieved will enable us to invest more in going beyond that. We will be putting in place the universal service obligation, which will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of all other Members.

David Nuttall: It is all very well having the universal service obligation, and I urge that it be introduced as quickly as possible, but the key question is the definition of “affordable” or “reasonable”. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when it is introduced my constituents will be able to afford what the providers offer?

John Whittingdale: The universal service obligation is a safety net to benefit those few remaining people who have been unable to access superfast broadband. We are consulting on the precise details, including the costing, and we are discussing with industry how that will be met. I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended that it should be affordable to his constituents and those of all other Members.

Football Supporters Associations

Henry Smith: What recent discussions he has had with football authorities on the voluntary and community work of supporters associations.

Tracey Crouch: I have regular discussions with the football authorities on a variety of issues, including the work of supporters associations. The expert working group set up by Government has been looking at building on supporter engagement. I have received a copy of its report, which will go to the football authorities for approval by their boards.

Henry Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Crawley Town supporters alliance for its charity work through the Crawley Kicks project for young people, and for raising funds for Chestnut Tree House children’s hospice in Sussex?

Tracey Crouch: I share a TV region with my hon. Friend, so I also follow the ups and downs of his club. It is nice to be able to congratulate Crawley Town supporters alliance on their admirable community work. Supporters groups up and down the country make a hugely valuable contribution to their communities, as well as raising funds for their club. Football clubs are stronger when working with, and in the best interests of, their supporters.

Ian Lavery: The Northern league was founded in 1889 and is the second oldest football league in the country. It could not have survived without the dedication and commitment of supporters and volunteers. A shining example of that is Mr Mike Amos, the chairman of the Northern league, who is retiring this year after 20 years. Like many other volunteers in non-league football across the country, he has done a fantastic job. Will the Minister join me in thanking the likes of Mr Amos for their dedication and commitment, and wish him and his family the very best for the future?

Tracey Crouch: Football is nothing without its fans, its volunteers and the communities that it works in. It is important that we celebrate and honour those who dedicate their lives in a variety of different ways to football, so I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mr Amos on all that he has done to serve the Northern league.

Damian Collins: Will the Minister say when the report from the expert working group will be published? We were hoping that it would be published at the end of last month. While the arrests in Zurich this morning highlight the problems in the governance of world football, there are still many concerns about the governance of football in this country, too.

Tracey Crouch: I can certainly give an indication about when I expect the report. If anything, I owe the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) an apology, because in my response to this question last time, I said that it would be published before his Bill comes before the House tomorrow. I have received a copy of the report. It has been done by football for football, so it is only right that the football authorities that need to look through it are given the opportunity to do so. I expect that to be done within the next three weeks and that the report will be published in January.

Sports Strategy

Ruth Smeeth: When the Government plans to publish its new sports strategy.

Tracey Crouch: I plan to publish the new cross-departmental strategy for sport and physical activity before Christmas.

Ruth Smeeth: The Department’s own “Taking Part” figures show that children’s participation has dropped under this Government. The number of five to 15-year-olds playing competitive sport outside school has dropped 19%. Given that my city, the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, has been awarded European City of Sport for next year, when are the Government going to give us some detail, stop talking and start delivering so that my constituents can get the most out of next year?

Tracey Crouch: The hon. Lady has only to wait a very short time to see what the Government will be doing to deliver a brand-new policy on sport. Making sure that children participate in sport at a very early age is incredibly important. We know that if children develop the habit of sport at a very early age, it is something that they will continue. If she can bear with us for a few more days, I hope that she will get the answer to her question in more detail.

Paul Maynard: I know that the Minister is very keen on increasing participation in sport. Is she aware of the work of Wheels for All, a Lancashire charity which allows cycling for those with a disability? It is concerned that its activity levels are not being included in the Government’s activity survey because it does not count as sporting. There is too much focus on elite paralympic sport and not enough on activity levels that benefit the disabled community.

Tracey Crouch: My hon. Friend makes a really good point. The previous sports strategy relied on only two crude measurements around participation and medals. As I have indicated during previous discussions in the House, the new sports strategy will look beyond those two measures to see what social value sport brings to the community. That of course will mean that nobody should be prevented from participating in sport or any kind of physical activity.

Jim Shannon: Any new strategy should involve the participation of more ladies and girls but must also address obesity, particularly at primary school level. Can the Minister say what discussions she has had with our Health Minister to address that issue?

Tracey Crouch: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I regularly meet Ministers across all Departments, but especially Health and Education Ministers. The new sports strategy is cross-departmental and will deal with many different issues. We will ensure that it aligns carefully with what the Department of Health is doing in the long term to combat obesity and childhood obesity.

Mr Speaker: Paul Farrelly. Not here.

Horserace Betting Levy

Laurence Robertson: What progress he has made in reforming the horserace betting levy. [R]

Tracey Crouch: May I first draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement in the name of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that was laid in Parliament this morning and confirms that the 55th levy has now been set? Despite this, the Government remain committed to replacing the current levy system to create a level playing field for British-based and offshore gambling operators. Work is continuing and we will make a further announcement in due course.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful for that response. One of the proposals put to the Minister by the sport of racing is for a racing right. Will she say what work the Government have done in considering the proposal, whether she needs further detail from the industry and what timescale we are talking about?

Tracey Crouch: The previous Government undertook three consultations and we are committed to replacing the outdated levy. Work is continuing and more detailed policy design is under way. We will make a further announcement in due course.

George Kerevan: There is growing concern in the five racecourses in Scotland, including Musselburgh in my constituency, regarding the delay in introducing the new horseracing right. May I press the Minister for some form of timetable so that the racecourse industry knows where it is?

Tracey Crouch: Reform of the levy is an incredibly detailed piece of work and we want to ensure we get it right. It is important for everybody involved that we ensure that racing, a huge economic contributor to the UK economy, continues to be strong. We therefore want to ensure we do things appropriately.

Philip Davies: I should make people aware of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The total prize money fund for horseracing in the UK is £130 million, and, in one form or another, bookmakers hand to racing almost £200 million—nearly 50% more than the total prize money. Is it not fair to say that bookmakers pay a fair price for the racing product, and was it not irresponsible of the racing industry to turn down the extra millions of pounds on offer to it in the recent levy negotiations?

Tracey Crouch: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know he takes a keen interest in this matter. I assure him that discussions on the levy, including the voluntary contribution, took place, as the Secretary of State’s ministerial statement today makes clear. There is an issue with offshore remote gamblers not contributing from the statutory perspective, and that requires reform. We are therefore looking at it in close detail.

Clive Efford: It is two years since Labour forced the Government to commit to introducing a racing right to ensure that racing gets a fair return on all forms of betting based in the UK. It is estimated that the industry is missing out on £30 million a year. I press the Minister again: when can we expect a conclusion to the discussions on the horseracing right, and what discussions has she had with the industry about a sports betting right for all sports, which the last Labour Government initiated, that can be reinvested in grassroots sport?

Tracey Crouch: I have already answered the question about the timeframe. We must look at this in detail and an economic evaluation is taking place. The Government have no plans to introduce a sports betting right. The new model for horseracing will replace an existing arrangement for transferring funds from betting to horseracing.

Mobile Phone/Broadband Reception: Rural Areas

Daniel Kawczynski: What steps the Government have taken to improve mobile phone reception and broadband service in rural areas.

Ed Vaizey: I am thrilled with the progress we are making on broadband and mobile coverage. [Laughter.]Labour Front Benchers like to mock me, but I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, about the International Telecommunication Union, which states that the UK has risen from 10th to fourth in the broadband rankings, overtaking Sweden, overtaking Holland, overtaking Hong Kong and overtaking Finland. The broadband European scorecard, published this week, showed that once again we are at the top of the EU big five. That is progress.

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, progress indeed—but I am interested in Shropshire, which I represent and where issues remain outstanding. I very much hope that the Minister will give me some assurances about the work to improve coverage in Shropshire and to reform the electronic communications code.

Ed Vaizey: Broadband roll-out in Shropshire is now exceeding the number of Michelin stars. Almost 12,000 homes in my hon. Friend’s constituency have been passed by our broadband programme, and we will get to 92% of his constituency. We will reform the electronic communications code to make broadband roll-out go even faster, especially when we introduce our universal service obligation.

Ian Blackford: A report published by Ofcom in August found that 24% of Scotland’s landmass had no mobile signal, and the highlands and islands continue to be the worst areas for 3G coverage in the UK. The 4G mobile option took no account of Scottish Government proposals to set coverage requirements for each local authority. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure connectivity across all parts of the UK with 5G licences? Does he agree that 5G may be part of a solution to provide superfast broadband in rural areas?

Ed Vaizey: I have to say that 5G is some way off, but I am pleased that we are investing in the research. The hon. Gentleman may be looking at our plans to clear the 700 MHz spectrum, which will provide even better mobile coverage, but I know that he will rise with me to applaud the licence deal that we did with the mobile operators to get 90% geographical coverage around the UK by the end of 2027, with his interests firmly in our hearts.

Welsh Language

Glyn Davies: What plans he has to promote and strengthen the Welsh language.

Ed Vaizey: Well, what can I say, except that we are committed to the Welsh language? We are committed to providing Government services in the Welsh language, and we are firmly committed to S4C.

Glyn Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that S4C plays a key role in promoting the Welsh language in Wales? Does he understand that the widespread disappointment that people in Wales feel about the DCMS contribution was significantly reduced in the autumn statement?

Ed Vaizey: I am afraid that my glass is half full on this one. We secured £83 million of funding for S4C in 2012-13, and that funding remained broadly stable for the lifetime of that Parliament. Even now, if we take into account the contribution made by BBC News,
	S4C will receive a guaranteed income of some £90 million a year. That is guaranteed income, which any other media company—obviously, apart from the BBC—would cry out for.

Ian Lucas: But S4C is the only Welsh language channel. It is a national treasure for the United Kingdom. If the Government really have a commitment to the Welsh language, they need to stop cutting the income of the only Welsh language TV channel that we have. Will the Minister please reconsider?

Ed Vaizey: S4C was brought in by a Conservative Government. S4C has been supported by Conservative Government. S4C will continue to be supported by a Conservative Government; but unfortunately, we have had to make difficult decisions about funding across all areas of Government spending, because of the catastrophic mess left by the Labour Government.

Jonathan Edwards: In its general election manifesto, the Conservative party promised to safeguard the funding of S4C; yet last week, the comprehensive spending review outlined a further cut of 26% in the UK Government’s support for S4C. Is the Minister aware of his Welsh history and what happened the last time the Tories broke their promise in relation to S4C? Will he now consider the need to ensure that S4C is adequately resourced?

Ed Vaizey: As I keep repeating, S4C is adequately funded. It is extremely generously funded. It is generously supported by the BBC. It will continue to receive a generous grant from my Department. It is more generously funded than any other media organisation in terms of the number of viewers that it receives.

Topical Questions

Jason McCartney: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Whittingdale: Since the last Culture, Media and Sport questions, Adele’s new album “25” has enjoyed record-breaking chart success, the latest Bond film continues to do excellent business, we concluded our hosting of a tremendous rugby World cup and, of course, Great Britain has won the Davis cup, but we have seen the ability of sport to bring people together in an incredibly powerful and moving way at the England-France game at Wembley. The positive impact of the many areas sponsored by my Department on our economy, culture and general wellbeing were recognised and reflected in the spending review.

Jason McCartney: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating rugby league star Kevin Sinfield on being shortlisted for the BBC sports personality of the year award? Following the autumn statement, will he say how the Government are supporting the sport of rugby league and, in particular, the bid for the rugby league World cup in 2021?

John Whittingdale: I would, of course, like to congratulate all 12 contenders for the sports personality of the year award. However, hon. Members might be aware that there are some fans of Leeds Rhinos in the Department, one of whom is not sitting a million miles away from me, and I am sure that she will be very vocal in supporting Kevin Sinfield. However, with regard to the rugby league World cup, when we hosted the competition two years ago, it drew more than 450,000 fans and generated an estimated £9.6 million. Officials are due to meet the rugby league next week to discuss its proposed 2021 rugby league World cup bid.

Marion Fellows: The Immigration Bill seems to make it harder and harder for people in the creative industries, like all others, to work with people across the globe. Has the Secretary of State considered the benefits to our creative industries of a new short-term visa, and will he speak to the Home Secretary about the possibility?

Ed Vaizey: The hon. Lady raises an important topic. We have a close relationship with the Home Office and keep in close contact with it in on this important issue. Working with organisations such as Tech City UK, we have reformed immigration rules to allow people with the right kind of high-level skills to enter the country and work in our creative industries, and we will continue to work with the Home Office on the issue.

Lucy Allan: The Minister will be delighted to know that last night, Telford Town Park was announced as the UK’s best park. Will she join me in congratulating all those involved, particularly in Hollinswood and Randlay Parish Council, Friends of Telford Town Park and Telford and Wrekin Council, for the important work that they do?

Tracey Crouch: This is excellent news for the people of Telford, and I congratulate everyone involved on winning the best park award. Urban parks are vital in providing opportunities for people to get active in the fresh air, and it is important that we protect them for the benefit of local communities.

Peter Grant: As we come to within two days of Small Business Saturday, the Secretary of State will be aware that Channel 4 currently works with more than 350 production companies, including a large number of small and medium-sized businesses. Can he assure us that in the event of any privatisation of Channel 4, the livelihood of those important small businesses will not be threatened by the desire to centralise and rationalise to save money?

John Whittingdale: I share the hon. Gentleman’s admiration of Channel 4’s work in supporting our creative industries. I am concerned to ensure that Channel 4 continues to have a sustainable and viable future and deliver its remit. With regard to the possible ownership structures, no decisions have been taken, but we are examining a number of different options, including the one put forward by Channel 4 management.
	Whatever decision we reach will be designed to ensure that Channel 4 continues to make a considerable contribution to our creative economy.

David Rutley: I am grateful for the work that is currently being undertaken to review the case for greater integration of outdoor recreation in the current sport strategy. What steps are being taken to promote outdoor recreation, to further boost domestic and international tourist activity in rural areas in Macclesfield and across the country?

Tracey Crouch: Outdoor activity is a hugely important part of the tourism offer in rural areas across the whole UK, and the total annual tourism spending attributed to leisure activities is phenomenal. It is of course a key strand of the new strategy, and as tourism Minister I can say that it links in nicely with some of our other activities.

Douglas Carswell: There is mounting evidence that the BBC and its licence fee are inhibiting local newspapers’ ability to develop online. If the Secretary of State is to water down his previous antipathy to the licence fee, will he at least prevent it from being used in a way that hurts non-licence fee-funded local media?

John Whittingdale: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about local newspapers, which play a vital role in local democracy. I welcome the fact that discussions have been taking place between local media groups and the BBC to determine what the BBC might do to assist local newspapers. I understand that very good progress has been made, and I hope that the BBC will therefore be able to play its part in recognising the contribution that local newspapers make to news provision and giving them some recompense for that.

Scott Mann: With the highly successful Westminster gaming event having taken place earlier this month, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that computer programming and gaming are viable career options for many young people in our rural communities?

Ed Vaizey: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point about not only the fantastic broadband roll-out in Cornwall, but the south-west’s fantastic games economy, regarding which we can talk about companies such as the Engine Room, Auroch Digital and Opposable Games. As a strong supporter of games and a successful roller-out of broadband, I wholeheartedly agree with both elements of his question.

David Hanson: I cannot let the Minister get away with his comments about S4C. In May, the Conservatives’ manifesto said that they would safeguard the funding of S4C. How does the Chancellor’s statement last week safeguard the funding of S4C along the lines of that manifesto commitment?

Ed Vaizey: S4C will continue to receive funding from DCMS and the BBC, and it will continue to be the most generously funded media company in the country in terms of the number of viewers that it gets.

Amanda Milling: In September, a new memorial to the miners who lost their lives in the local pits was unveiled in Rugeley. On Saturday night, one of the four statutes was severely damaged by a driver who crashed into it and fled the scene. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in condemning the action of this callous individual and tell me whether any Government support is available for the repair, maintenance and renewal of local memorials?

John Whittingdale: I entirely share my hon. Friend’s feelings. I was concerned to hear about the damage to the memorial to the miners who lost their lives, especially as it came so soon after more than 2,000 people lined the town’s streets for its unveiling in September. I am sure that the whole House will join my hon. Friend in condemning the actions of the person responsible. I can tell her that my Department administers the memorial grant scheme. If a registered charity is responsible for the care of the memorial, it will be able to benefit from a refund of VAT paid on repair work.

Diana R. Johnson: If the Government are really serious about opening up culture and the arts to disadvantaged communities, will the Secretary of State explain to my constituents why £150 million was announced for London museums in the comprehensive spending review and there is £100 million for a new arts complex in Battersea, yet Hull, which is the 2017 UK city of culture, is getting a share of £1 million allocated by the Chancellor? How does that work?

Ed Vaizey: I have been to Hull twice now to find out what is going on, and it is fantastic to see the improvements—[Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers can mock what is going on there, but the people of Hull will see those Members laughing at their efforts to produce a great capital of culture.
	The hon. Lady does not mention the £78 million for the Factory in Manchester. She does not point out that the intention of the £150 million to get storage out of Blythe house is to get objects away from London and out to the regions. I welcome Hull, even if Labour condemns it as the capital of culture.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is an exceptionally excited fellow this morning. I do not know what he or the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) had for breakfast, but I shall probably take care to avoid it.

Paul Maynard: The Minister will be aware of the campaign by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association to safeguard sculpture in the outdoor realm either from removal or from being sold off. This is a worthwhile cause, so what can the Government do to safeguard and support public sculpture?

Ed Vaizey: I feel strongly about this issue, Mr Speaker, but I shall try not to get too excited about it. I was pleased to secure the future of the Henry Moore sculpture on Abingdon Green, as well as to campaign to keep a Henry Moore sculpture from being sold by Tower Hamlets and to prevent a Hepworth sculpture from being sold by a shopping centre, so I will support any public campaign that keeps a sculpture where it is meant to be.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Greg Mulholland

Greg Mulholland: I, too, am delighted by the nomination for BBC sports personality of the year of Leeds Rhinos legend, Kevin Sinfield, who is now of Yorkshire Carnegie, and I am equally delighted by the nomination for Otley cycling world champion, Lizzie Armitstead. Given the popularity of cycling, will the Department and the Government get behind making the Tour de Yorkshire a four-day event so that we can build on its huge success last year?

John Whittingdale: As I said earlier, I congratulate all those who have received nominations for BBC sports personality of the year. It is a testament to how many successful sportsmen and women we have in this country that this year’s line-up is so strong. I am strongly aware of that cycling tournament in the north and we will certainly consider that.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Sitting Hours

Martyn Day: If he will bring forward proposals to reform the sitting hours of the House.

Will Quince: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits to the House of Commons of it sitting at 9:30am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Therese Coffey: Sitting hours are decided on by the House. They are regularly reviewed by the Procedure Committee and decisions are made by hon. Members based on the options recommended following consideration of the relevant evidence. I say to hon. Members who want change that although this matter was decided on in the last Parliament, there is no reason why they cannot make representations to the Procedure Committee for further consideration.

Martyn Day: Our staff have to be here at unreasonable, family-unfriendly hours. May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House what we are doing to ensure their health and wellbeing, and to be a considerate employer?

Therese Coffey: I do not speak on behalf of the Commission, but it is my understanding that the House is a very proactive employer in managing health and safety, and appropriate conditions for staff. Of course, we are employers of our own staff directly, and it is for us, as their managers, to ensure that they have appropriate conditions.

Will Quince: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will take that advice. Does she agree, however, that starting at 9.30 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays would not only make the House more family-friendly, but allow some Members to see their family and children of an evening?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. These matters were debated extensively, and I think it is fair to say that there are probably 650 different opinions on what constitutes something family-friendly. Nevertheless, one of the important things that Standing Orders of the House do is ensure that all hon. Members have the chance to come to Question Time. He will recognise that the sitting hours of the Chamber are not necessarily the sitting hours of Committees and other such meetings. All these things need to be brought into the round.

Greg Mulholland: We need to remember the need for schools to come and visit on Tuesday mornings before we make rash decisions based on the interests of MPs based in the south-east.
	Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the coverage about the possibility of moving private Members’ Bills from Friday to Tuesday was absolutely ludicrous? Frankly the busiest and hardest-working day for most constituency MPs is Friday, when we are in our constituencies. We should be able to do that every week, and therefore look at dealing with private Members’ Bills on Tuesday evening.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman will know that this option was considered by the House in the last Parliament, and there was a vote on it. At the time, hon. Members decided not to pursue that option. Again, the debate can still be had.

Philip Davies: For debates on assisted dying and the European Union Referendum Bill, more than 300 people appeared here on Fridays. If people want to turn up on a Friday, and the issue is important enough, they are perfectly capable of doing so. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if people want a 9-to-5 job, there are plenty of them available, and they should apply for one rather than be a Member of Parliament?

Therese Coffey: I should say that “9 to 5” is one of my favourite songs by the great Dolly. My hon. Friend is an advocate of many causes on Fridays, and I think he makes a fair point about hon. Members picking issues of significant interest that have attracted Members to stay here. Daylight saving is one example, as is assisted suicide, which has been mentioned, and there are other such matters on which hon. Members will find time to be here. It is for hon. Members to decide how they wish to fulfil their role, including in relation to the introduction of private Members’ Bills.

English Votes on English Laws: Divisions

Andrew Bridgen: What progress has been made on preparations for the first divisions of the House which will follow the new Standing Orders on English Votes on English Laws

Therese Coffey: Preparations for the first Divisions under the new Standing Orders have been under way for some time. The House authorities and the Government have worked together to put in place arrangements for the Divisions, including the use of tablets to assist in the recording of double majority votes. Hon. Members who were here in the last Parliament will have seen the use of iPads as a test ground for that.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that, going forward, every MP from every part of the UK will still be able to debate and vote on every piece of legislation in the Commons, and make it clear that the accusation that this will create two tiers of MP is simply not true?

Therese Coffey: I agree with my hon. Friend that every Member in this House will continue to debate on Second Reading, during various elements of Committee and Report stages, and on Third Reading. It is simply the policy that we have successfully introduced that, when it comes to matters that are devolved and that affect England or England and Wales only, it is crucial that measures have the explicit consent of the MPs from those nations involved.

Ian Lucas: If we are to have English votes for English laws, why, on non-devolved matters that particularly affect Wales, such as the future of S4C, can we not have Welsh votes for Welsh laws, with double majority votes for MPs from Wales?

Therese Coffey: We were very careful, in our proposals, to ensure that every Member could continue to debate and vote on matters, even if they affected only England. We are still the United Kingdom Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly was established to deal with devolved matters. The hon. Gentleman recognises that, as do we.

Prime Minister’s Questions

Peter Bone: If he will bring forward proposals for Prime Minister’s questions to take place on Tuesdays and Thursdays in each week.

Chris Grayling: I sense a new campaign from my hon. Friend, but I am afraid there are no plans to change the current arrangements.

Peter Bone: I take that as a nod and a wink to start a campaign—I appreciate the Leader of the House’s subtlety. We should go back to having two sessions of Prime Minister’s questions. This week, PMQs was lost, quite rightly, but if we had two sessions, the Prime Minister would at least have been here once, and he is the servant of the House, not a President. Will he encourage me a bit more to start that campaign?

Chris Grayling: I fear not. The practical problem is that, if Prime Minister’s questions take place on a Tuesday and Thursday, it would be difficult for the Prime Minister to represent Britain internationally. On the whole, I think that the full session on a Wednesday strikes the right balance. I regard yesterday’s decision to postpone questions for the week as something that would happen only in exceptional circumstances. In my view, we should stick with the current arrangements.

Pete Wishart: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider my suggestion to limit to 10 minutes the exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with no limit on the number of questions that could be asked in that time. Recently, that exchange has been taking up almost half the time available for PMQs—so that we can hear from Mary from Manchester or Olivia from Oldham. Will he look at this proposal and see whether we can get more Back Benchers in?

Chris Grayling: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I fear it is for the Chair to decide when to accelerate proceedings.

November Recess

Diana R. Johnson: For what reason it is his policy for the House to retain a November recess.

Chris Grayling: We give careful consideration to how we manage the recesses across the year, but ultimately it is a decision for the House. My colleague the Chief Whip and I are always happy to consider the calendar across the year. We have a November recess because it was originally the time of the Queen’s Speech, and there were always two or three days either side for Members to spend time in their constituencies.

Diana R. Johnson: I appreciate that, but that is the point: it was previously the date of the Queen’s Speech, but that now takes place in May. I am still confused, therefore, as to why the Government feel that November is an appropriate time for this recess, especially given that it does not fit with school half terms—if that is what the Leader of the House was thinking: that people could spend time with their families.

Chris Grayling: The November recess is not particularly designed to be family time; it is for Members to spend time on important constituency work. Those who seek to take part in the important business that sometimes takes place here on a Friday will know that it is not always easy to find weekdays to spend in the constituency. It is sensible, therefore, to set aside a few days across the year primarily for constituency work.

Melanie Onn: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government have not yet given the dates for the Easter recess, and can he guarantee that they will co-ordinate it with the school holiday and not make the same mistake they did with the November recess? Announcing the date would enable Committees to organise their hearings and MPs would be able to plan their time in their constituencies?

Chris Grayling: We will always do our best to give as much notice as possible, but our prime responsibility, as business managers, has to be to ensure that the Government’s business can be delivered across the Session. We will seek to strike the right balance and provide that information as soon as we practically can.

Back-Bench Business

Philip Hollobone: If he will ensure that debate time for Back-Bench business is safeguarded.

Therese Coffey: The introduction of the Backbench Business Committee, as part of the Wright reforms, was a great innovation in the last Parliament. It is for the Committee to schedule business on the days allocated to it in each Session and for the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Chair of the debate to manage them when they take place.

Philip Hollobone: The Leader of the House has protected Back-Bench business very recently with a scheduled time limit for the debate. What is the policy of the Deputy Leader of the House on doing this? May I encourage her to do it far more often so that Members know when a debate is likely to finish?

Therese Coffey: I am not exactly sure of the procedure that my hon. Friend refers to. It is usually at the discretion of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to indicate the likely times of debates on each topic if the Committee chooses to split up its days. The concept of injury time for all business was considered by the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament, but the Committee agreed with the then Leader of the House that rendering uncertain the time of conclusion of debates in the House would be undesirable.

Leader of the House: Question Time

Antoinette Sandbach: What assessment he has made of whether oral questions to the Leader of the House is an effective use of parliamentary time.

Chris Grayling: The oral questions rota is regularly reviewed to ensure that the Government and other answering bodies can be adequately scrutinised, reflecting any machinery of government changes and the quantitative evidence of Members questioning.

Antoinette Sandbach: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s answer, but there are many important issues that need to be raised. Will he consider whether oral questions to the Leader of the House are the best use of time?

Chris Grayling: I am very tempted by the idea of merging questions to the Leader of the House with business questions, as we seem to cover a lot of the same ground. There are areas of activity where there is a case for allowing more time for scrutiny in the House. I intend to give careful consideration to the matter in the coming weeks. There may well be a case for change.

Tom Pursglove: Has the Leader of the House made any assessment of whether we ought to have more time to put questions to him, given that today, for example, not all Members’ questions on the Order Paper will be reached.

Chris Grayling: I am very much in favour of all Members having the opportunity. It is a matter of ensuring that we make the best use of parliamentary time and have adequate time for scrutiny. If one listens to the topics covered in this short session today, it is not entirely clear to me why we could not take those as part of business questions and make this 15-minute slot available for another topic, such as Scotland or International Development, where there might be a case for an extended session.

Restoration and Renewal

Martin Vickers: What steps he has taken to assist the work of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster (Restoration and Renewal).

Chris Grayling: As a member of both the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster and the House of Commons Commission, I have been working closely with fellow members of those Committees to ensure that colleagues in both Houses will be able to consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee in the new year.

Martin Vickers: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Committee does all it can to contain the costs, while ensuring that the House continues to meet within the confines of the Palace?

Chris Grayling: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a duty to ensure that we deliver an effective home for our democracy, protect a world heritage site and do that at a cost that is right for the taxpayer. My aim is to avoid a period of change which creates disruption for our colleagues and high cost for the taxpayer, so we are working to find the best balanced solution for all Members.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Restoration and Renewal: Costs

John Nicolson: Whether officials of the House have discussed with HM Treasury the potential costs of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

Tom Brake: Officials have kept the Treasury informed about the methodology adopted by the independent options appraisal and have taken advice from the Treasury on the treatment of major projects, such as the restoration and renewal of the Palace, in terms of the Treasury’s Green Book business case guidance. It would be premature to discuss the cost of specific options until the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster has concluded its work.

John Nicolson: Given that the project will be paid for by the taxpayer, have there been discussions about how the House will liaise with the Treasury about keeping costs under control and how best to provide ongoing scrutiny for Members?

Tom Brake: Clearly, there will be such discussions, given that restoration and renewal will be a costly project. If the hon. Gentleman has strong views, I encourage him to submit evidence to the Joint Committee, which will take evidence until 22 January. I am sure the Committee will want to take his concerns on board.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Estimates

Patrick Grady: What progress the Government are making on reforming the estimates process.

Chris Grayling: This matter is currently being considered by the Procedure Committee, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to communicate his views to its members.

Patrick Grady: We were told during the debates on English votes for English laws that there would be opportunities to debate and amend provisions relating to Barnett consequentials during the estimates process. Given that the Chancellor has cut the Scottish Government’s revenue budget by 5.7% over the next four years, when in the estimates process will we have an opportunity to debate, amend and vote on that?

Chris Grayling: The House can of course vote on the estimates each year. However, if the hon. Gentleman is looking to have an extended debate, it is within the gift of this House to change its procedures in order to ensure that he has the ability to contribute and vote in the way he wishes.

Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council

Mark Durkan: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council.

James Duddridge: I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for his urgent question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about the excellent work of the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council. The meeting formally concluded late last night, but in reality it will carry on today with a number of bilateral meetings across Whitehall, including with me.
	The Joint Ministerial Council is the highest political forum established under the 2012 overseas territories White Paper. It brings together Ministers, elected leaders and representatives from the overseas territories for the purpose of providing leadership and shared vision across the territories.
	At this year’s meeting we discussed a large range of subjects, including child safeguarding, economic development, financial services transparency, climate change, sustainable energy, education and skills and the challenges of providing healthcare in small jurisdictions. We also discussed sports participation by the overseas territories, pension arrangements with the Department for Work and Pensions, governance and security. We had a very full communiqué establishing how we would work together over the coming year. It has been very successful and I look forward to further meetings later today, following up on some of the commitments made last night.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked from my perspective as an officer of the all-party group on anti-corruption. I welcome what the Minister has said about what he regards as the success of the council meeting, and I hope that we can see evidence of that in relation to key issues, such as child safeguarding and climate change.
	However, in relation to financial services transparency, which is what most concerns us, how satisfied is the Minister that there really has been significant progress on, for example, the signal stance that the Prime Minister has taken against corruption and the strong indications that were made about the criteria set down by the Treasury on the requirements for real transparency and proper registers of beneficial ownership of companies in the overseas territories, because they provide the shelter for all the tax scams and shams? This is not just populist tax jealousy; these scams and shams scandalise legitimate businesses and rob developing countries of key moneys. It is not a victimless crime.
	Are the overseas territories co-operating? As I understand it, only Montserrat has agreed to the standards that are sought. Where are the other overseas territories on that? In the ongoing bilateral meetings today, will we really see moves from others? Is it true that the Cayman Islands have flatly refused and are making no moves on these matters?
	When will we hear from the Treasury, if not from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on how detailed the commitments are going to be on meeting the requirements that it has set down for real transparency, because other businesses and professionals need to see them? Organisations that are working on behalf of global tax justice, such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, ActionAid and Global Witness have concerns and want to support the Government’s efforts. When will we know more?

James Duddridge: An enormous amount of progress has been made over the past few years in relation to financial services transparency, particularly openness on tax. I think the hon. Gentleman wants to probe me more on beneficial ownership and the transparency around company ownership. I will quote from the joint communiqué that was issued overnight and is found on the Foreign Office website. When further bilateral meetings are held, the Government usually issue a written ministerial statement the following week, as we intend to do when we have had the benefit of the additional post-JMC bilateral meetings.
	The communiqué was written by all members of the overseas territories, signed up to by all members, and agreed to by the UK Government. The members
	“agreed to hold beneficial ownership information in our respective jurisdictions via central registers”.
	There is a lot more text, but I will end with the final sentence:
	“We agreed that addressing this issue would be given the highest priority and that progress on implementation would be kept under continuous and close review.”
	I have had several meetings today, it will be high on my agenda over the coming months, and we will make progress. However, some of the detail is quite technical. I think that some of the hon. Gentleman’s views of this issue are a snapshot of the situation in the middle of the JMC. There is often quite extensive, and sometimes quite robust, discussion, but late last night we got to a shared understanding that moves us further forward.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister will know that three quarters of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth continue to criminalise same-sex sexual activity. Happily, that is not the case in the overseas territories, where the only discrimination is in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which have different ages of consent. Only Gibraltar and the Pitcairn Islands recognise same-sex unions and facilities for same-sex adoption. What discussions has the Minister had with our overseas territories about their continuing to improve their position in respect of anti-discrimination measures towards their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens?

James Duddridge: I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for raising this issue. Progress has been made. He mentions the Cayman Islands, and only this week their premier reported to their parliament on their recognising equal marriage, which is a great step forward. Small territories have legislative constraints on time, and it may take them longer to get all the legislation through that they would want. However, this is a priority for a number of territories, and we will do all we can to support them in bringing forward modern legislation that we would like to see around the world so that everybody, regardless of their sexuality, is treated equally.

Catherine West: Only last week, Mr Speaker, you told the House that we should be doing more to celebrate the progress being made by the overseas territories on transparency of the affairs of companies based in those territories. I will welcome progress where progress is made. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned Montserrat in particular, which should be commended for introducing a public register for its small financial sector. It is also commendable that the overseas territories have been leading the way with the commitment to automatic exchange of information.
	However, we all know that there is much more room for improvement. Most developing countries remain outside these new commitments to exchange information, and there is much more that the UK and the territories can do to help bring them in. A clear commitment to providing information to developing countries on a temporary, non-reciprocal basis would help, as would producing statistics on the source of assets in our financial institutions. That would genuinely be something to celebrate. All the world’s major financial centres have agreed to the same standards as the overseas territories on information exchange, as the G20 has made clear. It is the new global standard, and we should expect nothing less.
	On company ownership transparency, we will celebrate when the UK Government commit to supporting Montserrat in making access to its register free, online and in open data format, and when we see such public registers implemented across the rest of the overseas territories. Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands: none is inclined to change its position at all, despite even the Prime Minister watering down his demands. Instead of demanding public registers, as the Prime Minister once advocated, the Department devised three tests for the territories’ regimes to meet: first, access to company ownership information without restriction; secondly, an ability quickly to identify all companies that a particular person has a stake in; and thirdly, a requirement that neither the companies nor their owners are tipped off. All those are good things, but they are the minimum that should be done. The Government are responsible for good governance in the territories, not for a minimal standard of governance. There is a real lack of ambition on this crucial question.
	As the events of this year’s council have shown, there is some disappointment. The Financial Times reported this week that the Cayman Islands have flatly refused the UK’s request to give law enforcement agencies access to beneficial ownership information, arguing that such a basic measure as allowing investigators to trace the proceeds of corruption poses a “competitive disadvantage”. The Prime Minister has called on the territories to act since 2013. Surely it is now clear that his Government need to redouble their efforts to bring standards up to scratch.
	In fiscally difficult times at home, the overseas territories, as leaders in international finance, should have world-leading standards, not be world leaders in enabling corruption and tax evasion. My party made a manifesto commitment to require the overseas territories to produce publicly available registers of the real owners of companies based there. When will the Government match our, and indeed the general public’s, ambition in this regard?

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, but before the Minister answers, let me just say to the House—I hope, for the last time—that from now on I am minded to insist on the time limits for these exchanges. The first point is that the hon. Lady was supposed to take two minutes, but she took over three. She is by no means the only offender, and I recognise her sincerity and commitment, but she was over her limit. It is as simple as that.
	The second point is that, where there is an urgent question or a ministerial statement, the shadow Minister is not supposed to come in to deliver a speech, but to give the briefest reception to the statement by the Minister and then ask a series of pithy questions. It is not a speech in a debate, but a series of questions.
	As I say, I recognise that the hon. Lady is new to the House, though a very capable individual indeed, but in future we will have to observe the time limits and the appropriate format. I give notice that if those are breached, I will simply cut the question off. I do not intend any discourtesy, but if we have rules, we must stick to them.

James Duddridge: In relation to Montserrat, I do not know what discussions the hon. Lady has had with Premier Don Romeo, but one of the reasons why it was easy for Montserrat to comply with some of our earlier requests was the lack, sadly, of a financial services industry, which is still developing there. There are many enormous challenges in Montserrat, but quite frankly, financial services is not one of them. It is easy to be fleet of foot when an extensive industry is not already in place.
	There is much more of a challenge for the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, where we are focusing our attention. It is wholly untrue to say that the position at the end of the Joint Ministerial Council was one of obstruction by the Cayman Islands or, indeed, any other territory. I will have further discussions with the Cayman Islands today, but they and everyone else signed up to the following language:
	“We discussed the details of how these systems”—
	the central systems—
	“should be implemented, including through technical dialogue between the Overseas Territories and UK law enforcement authorities on further developing a timely, safe and secure information exchange process to increase our collective effectiveness for the purposes of law enforcement.”
	Some of the technical detail is quite tricky—there are different systems in different jurisdictions—but there is an ongoing and close dialogue with the National Crime Agency about how we can achieve such things.
	A number of comments have been made that I would say are not misleading but perhaps slightly out of date. Once hon. Members have had time to digest the communiqué, they may wish to find an opportunity to discuss the subject again in more detail so that we can have a robust exchange, consider how we can make further improvements and get a shared understanding, because we all want the same thing.

Mark Field: I congratulate the Minister on the Joint Ministerial Council and wish him all the very best in the bilateral discussions he will have over the next 24 hours. I want to reflect on what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said. I hope she recognises that there has been and will continue to be progress. It is fair to say that, although we must insist on co-operation with tax authorities and law enforcement agencies, there is a distinction between secrecy, of which we do not approve, and the demand for privacy by those who use banking services not just in the overseas territories, but in the UK. That line should also be respected in dealing with these matters.

James Duddridge: I know that my right hon. Friend follows these issues carefully. We have had a number of discussions about this very subject, including late last night after the Syria vote. Privacy is important, but it should not be used to disguise corrupt practices, international terrorist moneys or the avoidance of taxation. It is very much a balancing act. The UK is on the side of greater transparency. The Prime Minister has led that charge internationally and will do so over the next year, including at a big global conference on corruption early in the new year.

Patrick Grady: The Minister and I were at the same Africa all-party group this morning, where the importance of domestic resource mobilisation for development was discussed. Of course, it is almost impossible for African Governments to mobilise domestic resource when multinational companies hide their profits through offshore tax havens.
	How has the JMC paved the way for the anti-corruption summit that the UK Government will host next year? What discussions took place in preparation for that summit, and how many overseas territories are expected to attend it? Generally, how are we getting our own house in order and those of our overseas territories before we start demanding the same of others?

James Duddridge: The Prime Minister and the UK are leading the way, and we are ahead of the G20 standards. The issue is not the tardiness of the overseas territories, but our concern that they go beyond what is required by the G20. Effectively, there is an arbitrage problem, in that the business will carry on being done, be it corrupt business or the movement of terrorist moneys, but will simply be done in a different jurisdiction. We do not want to move corrupt moneys, corrupt practices and tax evasion and avoidance; we want to eliminate them and to do so everywhere. It is therefore important that all international partners move forward at the same pace. The UK has taken the lead and the overseas territories are increasingly stepping up to the mark and delivering.

Nigel Evans: The overseas territories are some of the most beautiful places on earth, and I have been blessed to visit some of them over my 23 years as a Member of Parliament. I am encouraged by what the Minister said about the advances in LGBT rights in the overseas territories. Perhaps in his discussions with representatives of the overseas territories, he might drop it into their ears that not only is this a matter of equality and human rights, but, given that the pink pound is rather strong, they may be able to open their doors to hundreds of thousands more LGBT visitors from the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is most certainly a notable globetrotter. That is well recognised throughout the House.

James Duddridge: To clarify, Mr Speaker was talking about my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), rather than me.
	I certainly support the moves that my hon. Friend describes. This is not just an issue of equality. A number of the territories are incredibly beautiful places and a lot of money comes into them through tourism. Even more money could come in through tourism. There needs to be greater diversity of income and a move away from financial services. Attracting everybody, regardless of their sexuality, is good for business, as well as being the right thing to do.

Tom Brake: The UK Government have made a commitment to consult on the best way to stop the UK property market becoming a safe haven for corrupt money. Has that been discussed with the overseas territories, and what progress is being made on it?

James Duddridge: That matter has been discussed. We discussed specific examples of individuals arrested in the United Kingdom. When we have looked at their assets, we have found that they were renting property, but that, on closer examination, they owned the property through offshore companies. We want to open up beneficial ownership so that we can interrogate the actual position and seize assets in a timely manner. In a number of cases, assets can be sold or transferred quite quickly, so that they are out of the reach and jurisdiction of the UK Government. One reason we place so much emphasis on financial services transparency is so that our law enforcement agencies can get their hands on assets as quickly as possible before they are moved somewhere else around the world.

Mark Garnier: To what extent is the Joint Ministerial Council driven by the Foreign Office? Will the Minister advise the House how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office works with Departments such as the Treasury to tackle issues such as money laundering and tax evasion, which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised?

James Duddridge: The Foreign Office leads on collating the Government response on overseas territories, although in all candour, over the two days probably 70% or 80% of sessions were led by other Departments, rather than the Foreign Office. We had heavy participation from the Department for International Development, and others spoke on specific issues. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a contribution, as did a Health Minister. The Department for Education was represented, leveraging in its understanding of child abuse. The Department for Work and Pensions spoke on pensions, and the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Solicitor General—both of whom are in the Chamber today—showed great interest in the overseas territories and have been supportive in developing our relationship with them. It is very much an effort by Her Majesty’s Government, rather than just the Foreign Office.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. He mentioned child abuse and child safety, and we are aware that paedophile rings operate not only in the overseas territories but across the whole world. We need to have an exchange of information, and joint police forces working together. Will the Minister tell the House what was discussed in relation to that matter?

James Duddridge: A vast number of initiatives were discussed, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that increasingly international rings are smuggling children across jurisdictions and borders, and procuring individuals for sex. Increasingly, the internet is used, and a much more co-ordinated approach is required. That was discussed in some detail at the JMC, and leaders of all the overseas territories outlined what they had done in-territory. There was a commitment to pull those actions together and to learn from best practice.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Foreign Affairs Committee met leaders of the British overseas territories this week, and they raised various issue that we will write to the Minister about. One thing that struck me is that they were hoping for a new relationship in the way that governors are appointed, and they would like more input in that. I believe that modernising the whole system is a perfectly sensible proposal, and I would be interested in the Minister’s views.

James Duddridge: I thank the FAC for meeting leaders of the overseas territories, and I have already had a chat with other Committee members about what was discussed. The appointment of governors is a matter for the Foreign Office. Ministers do not get directly involved in decisions on who should be governor, but we do get involved in the process. I had a meeting about the governor in Bermuda, and I made a number of promises to the Premier, Michael Dunkley, about how we would take seriously his desires to get the right type of candidate to replace our current excellent governor who so ably hosted me in August.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on this urgent question. Clearly, we do not talk about the overseas territories enough, and the shadow Minister wanted to raise a lot of issues. Does the Minister agree that at least once a year in Government time we should have a formal debate about our overseas territories with the Minister responding, so that we can discuss all the matters raised today?

James Duddridge: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend thinks I am so naive as to be tripped up by such a question, but our colleagues will be listening. [Interruption.] It has been pointed out to me—as if I did not already know—that perhaps that could be a subject for the Backbench Business Committee.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minister agree that our overseas territories should be taking the lead in preventing the flow of corrupt criminal and terrorist money, rather than waiting for everybody else to do it at the same time? Will he set out a timetable for when the overseas territories will have in place the registers and access rights that we need?

James Duddridge: As it differs from territory to territory, I will struggle to give my hon. Friend an absolute date by which that will be done. I am reviewing what we are doing this year, and that is one checkpoint. Another checkpoint will be the end of February, which sits halfway between the beginning of the new year and the Prime Minister’s conference on corruption. I expect significant progress to be made during that time. A lot of that progress, however, will be what is committed rather than what is done. We will need to commit to a precise timescale. I think that timescale will vary quite significantly from territory to territory depending on how they hold their data—in paper or electronic format and whether that is in a central place—and whether they need to change legislation to bring all the information together once they have agreed in principle to do so.
	I should be able to give my hon. Friend a better answer early next year once we have gone through the process. The timescales should be challenging not only in reaching agreement on what should be done but, as he says, in terms of what is done.

Oliver Colvile: As the Minister knows, the Chancellor announced in the March Budget that the waters around the Pitcairn Islands would be a marine protected area, something in which Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the university and the Marine Biological Association take a great deal of interest. Will my hon. Friend explain how this process is moving forward, so that other overseas territories are able to consider becoming marine conservations areas, too?

James Duddridge: Marine biodiversity around overseas territories is enormous. In fact, a large percentage of global biodiversity, on both land and sea, is in and around the overseas territories. The Pitcairn Islands provide a strong example of how a marine protection area can work. There are similar investigations on Ascension Island. We are working collaboratively with other territories to consider how this scheme might be extended. It was in the Conservative party manifesto to extend a blue belt across the overseas territories. In reality, I think that will mean a different type of solution for some islands, but this issue is discussed every time we meet and every time we meet we make further progress in protecting biodiversity.

Chris Green: Will the Minister update the House on child safeguarding opportunities in the Falkland Islands?

James Duddridge: The hon. Gentleman is clearly very well informed. The Falkland Islands are leading the way on child safeguarding issues, specifically co-ordination. We aspire to having the same standards everywhere that are the best internationally. It is sometimes difficult, however, for an island of 4,000 people to have exactly the same arrangements as an island of our size or a smaller island. The Falkland Islands, with the permission of the rest of the Joint Ministerial Council, are co-ordinating work on behalf of all the overseas territories to learn not only from their excellent experience but to ensure that best practice and resources are shared on this important subject, which was the first item on the JMC’s agenda. It was the only time during the JMC that we had multiple Ministers and Departments at the meeting. It was incredibly important and I congratulate the Falkland Islands on leading the way.

Henry Smith: I congratulate the Government on setting up the overseas territories’ Joint Ministerial Council. I also congratulate the Government on introducing a feasibility study into the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will my hon. Friend update the House on when a decision on the resettlement of the Chagos islanders might be known, so that they can join the overseas territories family?

James Duddridge: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is a great advocate on this subject on behalf of his constituents and the people who used to inhabit the islands. As he knows, an extensive KPMG report has been published. Following that report, there was a consultation, the results of which have not yet been produced. It would be wrong for any Minister at the Dispatch Box to draw too many conclusions without having seen the full facts. I am, however, more than happy to meet him privately to discuss the process, and I am more than happy to be totally transparent in the House when the report comes out and to answer questions on this subject in any way that the House desires.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week? Before he does so, will he just straighten his tie?

Chris Grayling: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 7 December—Remaining stages of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 8 December—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Union Referendum Bill, followed by debate on a motion relating to cross-border co-operation to tackle serious and organised crime: the Prüm agreement.
	Wednesday 9 December—Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on mental health, followed by a debate on the effect of the autumn statement measures on women. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 10 December—Debate on a motion on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, followed by a general debate on international human rights day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 11 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 14 December will include:
	Monday 14 December—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve European documents relating to migration, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 10 December will be:
	Thursday 10 December—General debate on the protection of ancient woodland and trees.

Chris Bryant: You sat in that chair yesterday, Mr Speaker, from 11.30 am to 10.54 pm, as I am sure you are aware. By my accounting, that is 11 hours and 24 minutes, or 684 minutes without a break. That is quite a test of endurance, and some of us are wondering whether, like Davros in “Doctor Who” you have secretly had some kind of feeding and filtration system fitted into the chair or some hidden tubes. Or perhaps it is down to drugs. Now that the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Allergan, the owners of Viagra and Botox, have come together, perhaps they have invented a new drug, with which you have been impregnated, Mr Speaker, which means that you can keep a stiff upper lip all day.
	Over the last few days, a great deal of abuse has been hurled at Members for their views on whether or not we should support extending airstrikes to Syria. Some Members have been called murderers, others peaceniks and terrorist sympathisers. I hope the Leader of the House would agree that, although all MPs expect a certain degree of hurly-burly in political life, it is a fundamental principle that all Members are sent not as delegates but as representatives with the full power to exercise their judgment and their conscience to speak and vote without fear or favour, and that no MP should ever be intimidated.
	I think we would all agree that, sadly, some of the abuse has been beyond the pale. Several Members have had their offices barricaded. One Member had her house surrounded, while many have had photos of dead babies pushed through their front door at home. Today I gather that some Members have received photos of severed heads. MPs have broad shoulders—of course we do—but may I ask the Leader to review the arrangements regarding the security of Members’ homes and offices? This is not just about Members; it is about their families and, indeed, their staff, as several Members have pointed out. In particular, will he look at whether the responsibility for funding these matters should now be taken away from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and restored to the House authorities?
	I express the thanks, I hope, of the whole House for the way the police and staff of the Serjeant at Arms dealt with the legitimate demonstrations in Parliament Square yesterday evening. It is important for people to be able to demonstrate, but MPs and the public should be able to go about their business. Most importantly of all, I am sure we all wish the men and women of our armed forces a successful and safe return.
	Yesterday we lost Cabinet Office questions, so will the Leader clarify what has happened to them? Will they be next Wednesday, as I presume, and will International Development questions then be shunted on to the week after and so forth? When will the deadlines for these various questions now be?
	I have asked the Leader of the House twice about the recess dates for next year, and he has done 50 shades of grayling about it. On Tuesday morning, he told the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association that it was all to do with getting Government legislation through before Easter. May I remind him that the House does not meet for the convenience of the Government? The Government are accountable to the House, and it would be good to know the recess dates as soon as possible, not least so that Committees can make the dates of their sittings available to the public.
	The Leader of the House has just said that we shall be considering Lords amendments to the European Referendum Bill next Tuesday. How much time will he be providing for that debate? The most important of the amendments involves the decision to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. The Government regularly say that this is the most important decision that the country will face in a generation, so why on earth do they want to exclude from the vote the very generation who will be most affected by it? After all, at 16, people can have consensual sex, move out of the family home, rent accommodation, refuse consent to medical treatment, join the armed forces, drive a moped and drink alcohol. Even the three Crown dependencies already allow votes at 16.
	Why on earth not just give in now and allow 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, so that returning officers can get on with signing them up as soon as possible? Apart from anything else, the only way the Government will get the Bill on to the statute book this year is by caving in now. Their lordships voted in favour of the amendment by 293 to 211, and I bet they will vote the same way all over again. I predicted the tax credits U-turn several Thursdays ago, I predicted the junior doctors U-turn, and I hereby predict the votes at 16 U-turn.
	Will the Prime Minister update us on his so-called renegotiation of the UK’s membership of the EU? As I understand it, he wants everything to be signed off at the December meeting of the European Council. The Council meets on 17 and 18 December, but the House rises on 17 December, so how on earth does the Leader of the House expect us to be able to question the Prime Minister on the outcome of the meeting? This is meant to be one of the most important renegotiations of our membership that we will have seen.
	Some of us think that the Prime Minister is playing Russian roulette with our economic and political destiny. Hounded by his Eurosceptic Pavlovian dogs on the Back Benches, he keeps on doing the wrong thing. Last year the Government opted out of the Prüm convention on the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, particularly in relation to combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration. We are now the only EU country to be excluded from the convention. Labour said that that was a ludicrous decision last year, but now the Home Office has finally woken up and said that there is a
	“clear and compelling case for signing up to the Prüm agreements.”
	Too right, but this kind of hokey-cokey seriously undermines our national security, which surely depends on our being an active member of the European Union. By sharing information with our close European allies and partners, we can prevent dangerous crimes and bring criminals swiftly to justice.
	The Prime Minister’s weakness in failing to stand up to his Back Benchers has reduced our security, but only now, after Paris, are the Government finally recognising that fact. How much time will we be given for the debate on cross-border co-operation, which will also take place on Tuesday?
	As you will have seen, Mr Speaker, Tyson Fury won the world heavyweight boxing title last weekend, and has now been nominated for the title of BBC sports personality of the year. I hope that he does not win. You may also have seen his comments.
	“There are only three things”,
	he has said,
	“that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one’s paedophilia.”
	Leaving aside the bizarre, rather heterodox theology, that equates homosexuality with paedophilia. As I hope the Leader of the House agrees, that is profoundly offensive, and it is the kind of language that leads more young people to commit suicide. I gather that Mr Fury has subsequently said that some of his best friends are gay, so may I suggest that we invite him to Parliament some time in the near future? I am quite happy to go head to head with him.

Chris Grayling: I very much agree with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House on the events of this week. I also pay tribute to him for his brave stance yesterday. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the issue of the security of Members of Parliament and the need to protect them against criminal activity. We are all subject to legitimate public scrutiny, but it will never be acceptable for Members’ personal safety to be put in jeopardy or for them to be the victims of activities that a court would judge illegal.
	In the House, Mr Speaker, we never discuss the security arrangements for Members, but suffice it to say that you and I would both agree that it is and will continue to be a priority for the House of Commons
	Commission and the House authorities to do everything we possibly can to protect the right of Members to express their views in a free and unfettered way, and to protect them when they do so. I also echo the hon. Gentleman’s words of thanks to the police, and not just the police who were on duty yesterday but all of those who provide protection to Members of this House, whether in this place or in their constituencies.
	Following yesterday’s debate, in which Members on both sides said that they would expect regular updates on the situation in Syria, I should like to inform the House that the Government intend to provide a proper update statement before the Christmas recess. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our good wishes to the British air crew involved in action overnight.
	Members might like to note that the first measure covered by our English votes for English laws procedures passed through this House uneventfully on Tuesday evening. I should like to offer my thanks to the Clerk and to all the Officers of the House who have been involved in making the preparations for the new systems.
	I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House and all hon. Members will want to join me in sending our congratulations to the Prime Minister on the 10th anniversary this weekend of his election as Conservative party leader. Leading your party for a decade is a considerable achievement. It is one that others might perhaps aspire to achieve, but at the moment they look unlikely to do so.
	It is also the anniversary this week of the stand that Rosa Parks took on a bus in the United States to secure race equality in that society. I am sure we all agree that the changes to our societies since then, and the ongoing work to stamp out race discrimination, are not only necessary but something we should all be proud of and committed to.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me what was going to happen to the Question Time sessions. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that I addressed that issue in my business statement on Tuesday, when I indicated that questions would simply move back a week. The Prime Minister’ questions session—the sift for that session has already taken place—will simply take place next Wednesday; the same will be the case for Cabinet Office questions.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the European Union Referendum Bill debate. There will be a proper debate on the issue of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. It will be a separate issue, and the House will vote on it. If this House, as the elected House, again expresses its will that 16 and 17-year-olds should not at this moment be given the vote, it is my sincere hope that that view will be accepted in the other place.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the EU Council, and used the words, “as I understand it”. I am afraid he cannot simply go by what he reads in the papers. There are a lot of rumours and counter-rumours around at the moment, but when the Prime Minister is ready to make a statement, he will make it to the House and explain what is happening.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about the House deciding on various matters. The House decided a year, or a year and a half ago not to opt back into a number of measures. The Government are bringing forward a proposal on Tuesday to debate the Prüm directive and the House will be able to decide on that matter. It is absolutely right and proper that that should be the case.
	On the question of Tyson Fury, homophobia is not acceptable in sport. We should work hard to encourage more people in sport to be open and accepting of gay people in sport. It is right and proper that that change happens. I agree with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed, and as a Formula 1 fan, my vote is for Lewis Hamilton.

Amanda Milling: On small business Saturday, I will be announcing the winners of Cannock Chase’s local shop and market stall competition. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing good luck to all the nominees? May we have a debate in Government time on the contribution of independent shops and market traders to our local economies?

Chris Grayling: I think small business Saturday is a fantastic innovation, and I wish all the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency well for the awards this weekend. If I may, I will pay tribute to Home Instead Senior Care, which was the winner of the Epsom and Ewell business award last week. I have also been asked by the Deputy Leader and by my Parliamentary Private Secretary to make reference to Fishers Home Hardware in Suffolk and Boulangerie Joie de Vie in Finchley and Golders Green and to wish them well. While we are on the subject of fishers, perhaps we might send our good wishes to the fishermen and fisherwomen of this country.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your Herculean effort yesterday? It is not for nothing that you have gained the title of “Golden Bladder” for the way you chaired yesterday’s proceedings, and I think the whole House is very grateful for the very kind and well-managed way you structured yesterday’s debate. But please, Leader of the House, let us never have another debate like this ever again in the House. Such was the demand to speak in yesterday’s debate that about 50 Members never got the opportunity to contribute, and many of those who did were confined to just a few minutes at the end of the day.
	We live in a new type of representative democracy where MPs are lobbied and communicated with by means that were never anticipated, certainly when I was a new Member of Parliament. Constituents expect to see their MPs in this House expressing their opinions, particularly on massively important issues of state such as yesterday’s, and I am disappointed that the Leader of the House could not commit to the request from all around the House and the country to have a proper structured debate that would have allowed everybody who needed to contribute to the debate to get in. Let us hope we never have that again. I hope the Leader of the House will agree that if we have further debates as important as this, he will find the necessary adequate time so every Member gets an opportunity to contribute on behalf of their constituents, who have the legitimate right to hear from their MPs.
	One of the consequences of shoehorning that two-day debate into one day is the impact on departmental questions; the Leader of the House was right. I listened very carefully to what is going to happen on this. What that means for us on the SNP Benches is that we will not now have Scotland Office questions until next year. It will be two months since the last Scotland Office questions. We have a live Scotland Bill now; we have huge questions to be asked.
	There is also the question of the impact of military action on Scotland; 97% of Scottish Members of Parliament did not vote for military action last night and 72% of Scots oppose military action. We hear all this stuff about the family of nations and the pooling and sharing, but Scotland has rejected this military action. I know that matters not a jot to this Government—it is of no consequence to them—but it is massively important for us, and we will not have an opportunity to ask our Department about issues such as this until next year.
	The ink was barely dry on the voting Clerks’ ledgers when the jets were in the air last night with their deadly cargo. Can the Leader of the House say more about what he will do to keep the House updated? We particularly want to hear about what is going to happen to the refugees, because all this is going to do is increase the demand for this country to deal with refugees; if we are bombing that nation, it is a natural consequence that there will be more refugees in the coming year. So we want to hear more about the Government’s plans on that.
	This week has been characterised by finding targets, friendly fire and civil war, but that is enough about the Labour party. Every Government need an effective Opposition, and especially a callous, Conservative Government such as this one. If the Labour party cannot get its act together and cannot agree on matters as important as going to war or Trident, will it get out of the way and let the Scottish National party in there, because somebody needs to hold this Government to account for what they are doing?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid, as is often the case, the hon. Gentleman and I do not agree. Yesterday, we heard some very impassioned and powerful speeches—some speeches that will be memorable in the history of this place. They were made on all sides of the House and by Members on both sides of the argument. I think the debate we had yesterday showed this House at its best. We heard from 104 Members after what had been, over a period of a week and a bit, about 20 hours of debate, discussion and questions in this House. I think yesterday this House got it right. I also think it got the decision right, although I accept we do not agree on that. We heard impassioned speeches from the hon. Gentleman’s Benches, the official Opposition Benches and from our Benches. I think that is what people expect in their democracy.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about holding the Government to account. As I said earlier, it is very important that we provide regular updates to this House. There will be a statement before the Christmas recess to update the House. It is right and proper that that is the case.
	I have thought long and hard about the issue of Scotland questions. The hon. Gentleman asked how the Government will be held to account over the decisions taken yesterday. The answer is that there will be a statement in this House on precisely those issues, so that United Kingdom Members can ask questions about a decision taken across the United Kingdom.
	I have also thought carefully about the structure of question time sittings. It would have been possible to swap them around. In my judgment, the question time sitting that might have been delayed until after Christmas was that of the Department for International Development. However, given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about refugees, I think it is right and proper that this House has the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for International Development on the work we are now doing on Syria, as part of a holistic strategy, to make sure that we provide proper support for refugees and prepare for what we hope will be a period of reconstruction and redevelopment in that country as soon as we can possibly achieve a lasting peace.
	I accept that this House took big and challenging decisions yesterday. We as an Administration will now seek to make sure that this House is informed properly and appropriately and that it has the chance to question properly and appropriately. Given the passions expressed from the SNP Benches yesterday, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand my view that it is a greater priority to have a statement on what is happening in Syria and International Development questions before Christmas. He has plenty of opportunities to ask questions about Scotland matters and he will carry on doing so, including the moment we come back in the new year.

Andrew Murrison: The shadow Leader of the House was absolutely right to condemn the vile behaviour of a minority in respect of colleagues, including himself, acting according to their conscience. However, his argument was not advanced by his reference to Conservative Eurosceptics as dogs, however Pavlovian.
	Many of our constituents’ most anguished pleas to us relate to the cancellation, very often at short notice, of hospital procedures and operations. That seems to me to be on the increase. May we have a debate in Government time on the provision of step-down care in our national health service and, in particular, the disappearance in many parts of the country of our excellent community hospitals?

Chris Grayling: Of course, the state of our local health service is a continuing matter of concern for our constituents and for all of us as individual constituency Members. As individuals, we will always be champions of those local facilities. Although emergencies happen and are sometimes unavoidable, I say to the health service that I have always believed that, unless there are unforeseen circumstances, cancelling operations should be done only in extremis, because of the disruption it causes to individuals. My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for community hospitals in his own county and I am certain he will continue to take advantage of the opportunities this House provides for him to make sure that he is a champion for the health service in Wiltshire.

Ian Mearns: The Backbench Business Committee would like early confirmation, if possible, that we will be allocated the last day before the Christmas recess on Thursday 17 December. We have been given notice that that is likely, but it has not yet been confirmed. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is a member of the Committee and has pointed out that, on occasion, the time allocated for Back-Bench business has been severely squeezed by statements and urgent questions. On Monday two weeks ago, we were given three hours of protected time, which was a very welcome departure. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to: the allocation of three hours of protected time for a particular debate. I say to the Leader of the House that we would like to see more of that, if at all possible.

Chris Grayling: I am happy to look at that suggestion. I think it was discussed in the last Parliament and that the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor felt that it was not necessary, but I am happy to discuss with him whether we need to protect the business. In some respects, the allocation of time is a mixed responsibility—it depends on how many urgent questions there are—but I accept his point. Perhaps we can have a conversation about it.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on a review of section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 on the wearing of masks and face coverings on demonstrations? Surely, on public demonstrations on public land, the police should not have to apply for a special order to remove them. If people really have the courage of their convictions —whether they be members of the National Front, Occupy or the Stop the War coalition—statutory legislation should allow for the removal of all masks and face coverings on public demonstrations.

Chris Grayling: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says and the Home Office should certainly give that careful consideration. These coverings are used to intimidate and in our society there is room for legitimate process and not for intimidation. We should look very carefully at whether anything that allows protesters to intimidate rather than protest should be permitted.

Alex Cunningham: The Leader of the House will be aware of the bizarre decision by the Chancellor to axe the £1 billion funding for the first two carbon capture and storage projects in the UK. He might also be aware that Teesside’s ambition is to create the first industrial CCS project, with the potential to create thousands of jobs in an area that the Leader of the House will know has been devastated by job losses in the steel, mining and construction industries as well as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. May we have a debate to discuss the implications of the Chancellor’s decision, described by the industry as disastrous?

Chris Grayling: We had to take some difficult decisions in the spending review. We have not ruled out carbon capture for the future, but we have to take practical decisions based on value for money for the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is our duty in government and it is the duty of all Governments in office. We will continue to look carefully at carbon capture technology and I hope that a time will come when it is a sound and viable approach, but none the less the Government have taken a difficult decision. I simply remind him that in the northern half of the country the economy has been growing faster than in the southern half. The best way of securing jobs for the future in his constituency and the surrounding area is to continue that growth and get investment in there.

Bob Blackman: On Remembrance Sunday, an organisation projected on to the House of Commons a swastika with the message “Modi not welcome”. We know it happened, because the organisation put out a statement saying that it had done that. We have photographic evidence and witness statements from those who saw and took photos of those responsible. We know that the message was completely wrong, Mr Speaker, because you made Narendra Modi most welcome on his historic visit to Parliament. May we have a statement on what measures we will take not only to combat this incident but future more serious incidents?

Chris Grayling: For any organisation to link the swastika to Prime Minister Modi in a demonstration in this country is unreservedly unacceptable. We have close relations with India and I would condemn any such action. I am also aware of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. It is not yet clear that that was an actual incident as opposed to a creative use of computer technology to create the sense that it took place. If he has information that suggests that it did, I think that you, Mr Speaker, and I would be very glad to see it.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate on cuts to the police? The Metropolitan police is making clerical staff redundant and filling those posts with warranted officers. That flies in the face of the Government’s policy of making police more visible to the public; I assume that the Met will adopt a policy of moving desks closer to windows to fulfil that requirement. May we have a debate on that, as it is seriously depleting the number of officers available in our communities?

Chris Grayling: I think the hon. Gentleman is a couple of weeks late. If he listened to the autumn statement, he will have heard that we are not cutting police budgets. It is a matter for the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to decide how to spend their budgets most effectively in the interests of the citizens of London and I will not seek to tell them how to do so. We have not cut their budgets; we have actually protected them.

Jason McCartney: There was an incredibly well-attended debate in Westminster Hall this week about temporary post office closures and my own village post office in Honley has been closed temporarily, supposedly, for up to six weeks now. May we have a statement on these temporary closures, which many communities fear might end up being long term? They are much-needed assets in rural and deprived communities.

Chris Grayling: I can understand the concern, because there have certainly been occasions when temporary closures have led to permanent closures. I can well understand the anxiety. I suggest to my hon. Friend that when Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are before the House on Tuesday week, he might want to raise that question with them.
	We all want to protect local services in our constituencies, even though on some occasions change, sadly, is unavoidable.

Joan Ryan: Later today, I will host the inaugural meeting of the all-party group for Alevis, Alevism being a philosophy, a religion and a social and cultural identity. Sadly, neither Alevis nor their religion are recognised in Turkey, their country of origin. May we have a debate in Government time on the positive contribution that more than 300,000 Alevis living in this country make to this country as well as about the situation under which they live in Turkey?

Chris Grayling: One of the fundamentals that characterises our society is the desire to defend the interests of religious minorities. We are a liberal democracy that believes in freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of worship. I commend the right hon. Lady for the work that she is doing, and I am sure she will seek to use one of the occasions available to her in this House to provide a greater platform for the work she is doing with that all-party group and for the communities she is seeking to represent.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been campaigning to save the hedgehog, whose numbers have declined by more than a third over the past 10 years. Whereas hedgehogs are not a fully protected species, badgers, whose numbers have risen significantly, are. May we have a debate or a statement on protected species so that we can explore the need to have greater flexibility in this?

Chris Grayling: I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing. He is only too well aware, as I am, of the decline in hedgehog numbers in this country. It is only if our society works together to try to rectify that situation will we provide an opportunity for those numbers to be restored. A variety of different challenges face us, and I wish to pay tribute to The Times for launching a campaign in defence of our hedgehogs, encouraging all of us to make holes in our garden fences to create a superhighway for hedgehogs. Although I do have such a hole in my garden fence, sadly, I do not have any hedgehogs in my garden at the moment—I hope they will arrive.

Mr Speaker: While we are on the subject of protected species, I should point out to the House that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is sadly not in his place at this time, was for a considerable period, as he has often pointed out to the House, president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. Colleagues may wish to reflect upon the appropriateness of the right hon. Gentleman holding that particular post.

Jim Shannon: In the past week, we have had much discussion about a tax on sugar products and the Government’s intentions in that area. Many of us feel that there should also be a tax on fatty foods. Will the Leader of the House consider, and agree to a debate in this House on the issue of, ensuring that any such tax is used directly for the health service?

Chris Grayling: Of course we did have a debate last Monday on the issue of the sugar tax, following a petition. That is an example of how we are using the petitions system to debate matters of public concern. I must say that I have some doubts about an approach such as the hon. Gentleman outlines. As people say, all things are good in moderation but not in excess. We are much better off explaining to people what is good for them and what is not, and then allowing them to take their own decisions—otherwise, we just become a nanny state.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on fixed-term recalls? When people are convicted of serious offences and are released from prison before their term is up, most of the public would expect that if they then reoffend or break their licence conditions, they are returned to prison to serve the rest of their sentence in full. Currently, however, these people go back to prison for only 28 days. Last year, that applied to 546 offenders who had committed offences including murder, manslaughter, attempted homicide, wounding and assault. May we have a debate on this so that we can actually make sure these people go back to prison for the remainder of their sentence, rather than for a derisory 28 days?

Chris Grayling: As my hon. Friend knows, as Justice Secretary I legislated to provide additional powers to manage those who are on remand, and I am very much of his view that we need to be willing to respond effectively and strongly when such situations arise. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will of course be in this House on Tuesday, and I am sure my hon. Friend will take advantage of that opportunity to make the point very firmly to him, too.

Alan Brown: We have heard the earlier comments from the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary yesterday, who used the cliché that yesterday was great for democracy as people saw it in action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, however, only 104 MPs were taken and half as many again had put their name forward. I was one of the frustrated Back Benchers who sat there getting up and down all day. My constituents expect me to be able to put my views on the record in this House, and they are also disappointed when I do not get to do that. They could also make the decision as to whether the Prime Minister’s comments about “terrorist sympathisers” were a slur on my voting record. Will the Leader of the House therefore reconsider the future arrangements for such important debates?

Chris Grayling: I do not think that anybody was in any doubt about the views of the hon. Gentleman or those of his colleagues. Many Members of the Scottish National party made their points very articulately yesterday, even though I did not agree with them. Over the past few days, there have been many, many opportunities to question the Prime Minister and raise these matters in debate. My view is that this House handled the matter in the right way, and that it took the right decision, although I appreciate that he and I will not agree on that.

Antoinette Sandbach: The Leader of the House will be aware that the reservoir of bovine TB has the potential to devastate dairy herds in my constituency. Given the worldwide shortage of the vaccine and the Welsh Government’s withdrawal of their vaccine programme against badgers, could we have a debate in Government time on the impact of that wildlife reservoir?

Chris Grayling: That is a very real issue for the agricultural communities in this country. I read those reports with concern as well. It is absolutely right and proper that we take measures to protect our farming industry, as it is crucial to this country. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will be in the House shortly before the Christmas recess and will be able to address matters in greater detail then.

Douglas Carswell: Yesterday, this House voted for a military response against ISIS extremists in Syria. Will the Government find time to debate the possibility of a sanction-based response against the vile, barbaric Saudi regime, which has, for too long, promoted and exported a similar extremist creed?

Chris Grayling: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about that matter, but what I say to him is that this country has had a long partnership with Saudi Arabia under Governments of both persuasions. We have both worked collaboratively with the Saudis, and also worked with them to try to improve their society. I think we have the right balance.

Nigel Evans: May I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for your Olympic gold-winning performance yesterday? When I was Deputy Speaker, I once had to sit in the Chair for six hours, and half way through I had to put out a call of emergency to the Chairman of Ways and Means to replace me for a couple of minutes. How you did it, I will never know, and I pay tribute to you.
	Tourism is vital to the Ribble Valley. It is great that London attracts more visitors than any other city on Earth, but we want to get those visitors out of London and into places such as the Ribble Valley. I understand that Visit England is to be subsumed into Visit Britain, which means that there will not be a special voice for England alone. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have their own voices. May we have a statement from a Minister as soon as possible so that we can absolutely ensure that England will have a distinct voice as far as tourism is concerned?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend represents one of the most beautiful parts of England. I know it well, as my family came from close to there, and I used to spend many weekends walking in the Ribble Valley as a child. I will ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Heritage. We know that she is a very active supporter of the tourist industry in both England and the whole of the United Kingdom. She will not be taking decisions lightly, and will certainly not want to take decisions that adversely affect his constituency and discourage people from visiting it.

Paula Sherriff: May we have a debate on the practices of big businesses? Marks & Spencer, for example, continues to charge a significant premium on products such as flowers in hospital shops and has failed to follow the requests to remove guilt lanes packed with unhealthy snacks by its tills. Now, it has refused to meet me to discuss its appalling treatment of British workers who staff its major UK depot and are kept on insecure contracts. It is exploiting loopholes in EU law to pay new staff less than others who are doing the same work. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is unacceptable for a brand that trades on its British ideals to treat its staff and customers in such an irresponsible manner?

Chris Grayling: I have not looked at those details in Marks & Spencer, but every company today benefits from being a responsible employer and a responsible organisation. The hon. Lady has made her point very articulately.

Glyn Davies: Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in this Chamber on the protection, status and promotion of the Welsh language? Every Department here has a statutory duty to comply with Welsh language legislation. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a statutory duty to enshrine the Public Bodies Act 2011 to ensure that there is sufficient finance. Britain must not lose this beautiful culture, or treasure, that is “yr iaith Gymraeg”, and we need a debate to ensure that that does not happen.

Chris Grayling: I know that every Department takes this issue very seriously—in my time in two Departments, we were always careful to provide proper information to Welsh language speakers in Wales. I absolutely agree that to protect the diversity and culture of the UK as a whole we must protect the Welsh language, as well as the culture and traditional languages in areas now represented by the SNP. We have a duty to protect the diversity of the entire UK.

Stewart McDonald: May I, too, pay tribute to your Herculean efforts yesterday, Mr Speaker? I honestly do not know how you got through it.
	I took part in Prime Minister’s questions last week, I questioned him after the statement last Thursday and I took part in the Back-Bench business debate on Monday, and each time I raised the issue of protecting the ancient minorities in Syria and that part of the world. History shows that our plan must include protection for minorities with a history of fleeing military invasions, but that is the big hole in the Government’s plans. I do not wish to go over the arguments again, but will the Leader of the House schedule a debate on how we can protect the many religious, linguistic and other minorities in that part of the world?

Chris Grayling: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is making the case for our side yesterday. How on earth could we have protected the Yazidi community, for example, from what might otherwise have been genocide other than by sending in air support for the Kurds, who were seeking to defend the area and rescue people from
	Mount Sinjar? We have talked extensively about the need to protect Syrian citizens, and we will make a statement before Christmas to update the House, but I do not understand how we can help and rescue these people, particularly the Yazidis on Mount Sinjar, without military support, to which his party is opposed.

Tom Pursglove: Many Members were disappointed that, owing to how private Members’ Bills are handled, we were not able to vote on the Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of individual Bills, it would be useful to have a full debate in the House on reform of the private Members’ Bills system.

Chris Grayling: First and foremost, this is a matter for the Procedure Committee, and I would not dare to intrude on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who is the Chairman of the Committee, and his colleagues. May I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend speaks to the Chairman, who has raised this issue with me and is considering it.

Tom Brake: I welcome the Government’s intention to make quarterly reports on Syria, but will the Leader of the House confirm that they will be oral statements from the Foreign Secretary? Will they focus, in particular, on progress that the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are making in their diplomatic initiatives and willingness to tackle extremism? In addition, the Prime Minister said yesterday he was happy to reconsider the issue of orphans. Has he had time to consider that matter, and has the Leader of the House had a request from him to come to the House to tell us what his deliberations have led to?

Chris Grayling: We have indicated our intention to provide quarterly reports, but I would like us to do more than that, which is why I told the House this morning that I thought it appropriate to have a further statement before Christmas giving an update on matters raised yesterday, including the military action and humanitarian issues. There will also be International Development questions before Christmas. I absolutely intend there to be opportunities to put these questions to the Government.

Andrew Bridgen: As colleagues will know, there was unfortunately an extremely tragic incident in my constituency recently. The matter is now sub judice. I know the Government take the issue of online grooming extremely seriously—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led on it—but may we have a further debate on how social media are used as a vehicle for sexual grooming and what further measures we can take to protect vulnerable young teenagers from sexual predators?

Chris Grayling: I think we are all aware of the horrible crime that took place in my hon. Friend’s constituency and would all want to send our good wishes and condolences to the family of the victim. He is right that the case is sub judice, which means we cannot discuss the details, but suffice it to say that Ministers will have noted what happened and will want to learn lessons. The Justice Secretary, who is ultimately responsible for criminal justice legislation, will be in the House on Tuesday and will, I am sure, listen carefully to any ideas my hon. Friend wants to put to him.

Diana R. Johnson: I first raised with the Leader of the House on 17 September the issue of the national wind college which was going to be based in the Humber. In the comprehensive spending review statement last week, five colleges were announced, but not one for the Humber area specialising in wind energy. May we have a debate in Government time on the commitment to renewable energy, particularly offshore wind energy, and why, if the Government are serious about the northern powerhouse, Hull and the Humber seem to have been missed out yet again?

Chris Grayling: I am not sure that there is any intention in Government to miss out Hull and the Humber. It is of course the heart of the wind turbine industry in the United Kingdom, and a very successful part of the local economy. I will obviously pass the hon. Lady’s concerns to the Treasury. Having visited more than one of the local centres of education in the Hull and Humber area in the past few years, I think it is already well served by some excellent professionals who are very good at delivering skills to young people.

Peter Bone: On both sides of the House there was disappointment that some Members were not able to speak in the very important debate yesterday, and disappointment also at the very restricted time limit that had to be imposed. I hear what the Scottish National party says about it and what the Labour party says about it. They had an option yesterday to vote against the business motion and for extended time, and we could have removed the moment of interruption, which would have solved the problem. The only problem with removing the moment of interruption, Mr Speaker, might have been your bladder. Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week to the effect that when we consider major issues that the whole country is concerned about, we do not put a time limit on those debates?

Chris Grayling: Of course, we thought long and hard about that. We believed that the time set aside—10 and a half hours yesterday as part of about 20 hours of debate and questions over nine days—seven business days in the House— was the right balance. It was open to any Member, to the Labour party, to the Scottish National party and to Back Benchers to table an amendment to the business motion if they disagreed with us. Nobody chose to do so.

Nicholas Dakin: Last week I drew the attention of the Leader of the House to the Business Secretary’s commitment to report on the three working groups that he set up at the steel summit and the actions that they are going to take urgently to support the steel industry in this country. The Leader of the House helpfully said that he would take that up with his right hon. Friend. We are running out of time. I have heard nothing. I hope we still have the opportunity for the Business Secretary to come to the House and report on progress.

Chris Grayling: My office did indeed pass on that request. The Business Secretary will be here on Tuesday week in any case, and I will ask him to make sure that he is able to address the points and provide an update before we break for Christmas on what I know is a very serious matter for the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and the whole region.

Mark Pawsey: In its recent report, Public Health England stated that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than smoking, pose no identifiable risk to bystanders and should not be treated in the same way as tobacco products, yet in many public and work places, including here in the Palace of Westminster, users of e-cigarettes, who are in almost every case people who have given up using tobacco, are obliged to vape in the same space as smokers, where they are exposed to all the harm caused by tobacco smoke. The country looks to Parliament to set a lead, so may we have a debate on the policy regarding the use of e-cigarettes across the parliamentary estate?

Chris Grayling: This is a matter that has been considered by the Administration Committee. A decision was taken, rightly or wrongly, to put in place the current policy as my hon. Friend describes it. I suggest that he writes to our hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who chairs that Committee, to make those points. This is a matter for individual employers to decide. It is a matter of some debate and controversy, but I have no doubt that if he writes to the Chair of that Committee, his views will be carefully considered.

Patrick Grady: The Leader of the House has stressed the importance of International Development questions a couple of times this morning, so will he give further consideration to the point I put to him in the Procedure Committee? I suggested that every now and then we move International Development questions, and other departmental questions, from the slot immediately before Prime Minister’s questions so that they have a little longer and can take place in a slightly more considered atmosphere—perhaps the convivial atmosphere of a Thursday morning—instead of being drowned out immediately before Prime Minister’s questions, as often happens.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman might not have heard me earlier, but in the 15 minutes of questions to the Leader of the House earlier this morning I asked whether it was really necessary to have that separate Question Time, and whether those questions could be merged with business questions to allow that slot to be used to extend the time available for other questions. [Interruption.] I have a lot of sympathy with what he suggests.

David Nuttall: May we have a short debate on the whole issue of the rota for oral questions? That would give Members an opportunity to suggest changes, such as the one we have just heard and the possibility of separating the questions to the Church Commissioners, the Public Accounts Commission and the Electoral Commission. Currently Members are unable to question more than one of those bodies at the same time, and there might be other bodies that we ought to be questioning in that way.

Chris Grayling: Those are important points that I am happy to consider carefully, because we need to use the time available in the best possible way. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) kindly said from a sedentary position that he wants to hear from me every day, but I suspect it might not be me he wants to hear from every day.

Jo Stevens: Earlier this week the Welsh Labour Government’s groundbreaking law on presumed consent for organ donation came into effect. Given that more than 10,000 people across the UK are waiting for an organ transplant, may we please have a debate in Government time on presumed consent so that England can follow Wales’s lead?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and one that is well worth consideration. It sounds to me like something that the Backbench Business Committee could bring to the House. That debate would give the Government an indication of the balance of opinion in the House. We would want to understand the views of Members, and perhaps that is the best way of doing it.

Chris Green: Ladybridge football club in my constituency has recently been awarded a £56,000 grant by the Premier League and Football Association’s facilities fund to install new floodlighting. I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate the club on the award. May we have a debate on the importance of sports funding, including the Football Foundation, and on what more the Government can do to support sports in our schools?

Chris Grayling: That is one reason we have sought to ensure that funding for sport is available and protected in our spending plans. I pay tribute to the Football Foundation and to individual premier league clubs for the work they are doing. I will take the liberty, as a Manchester United supporter, of praising the work of the Manchester United Foundation, and indeed the many other premier league club foundations which do great work to promote grassroots sport, often among those who might otherwise be disengaged from society. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I wish the club in his constituency well. I also wish the rather larger club in his constituency well in sorting out its current problems.

Bill Esterson: On Saturday I shall be visiting some of the excellent small businesses in my constituency, including Red Star Brewery in Formby, Roxiie’s Treasures in Crosby and Maghull Tyre & Exhaust in Maghull. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those responsible for the success of Small Business Saturday over the past few years, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the small business Saturday team and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who was instrumental, with others, in bringing the concept to this country? May we have the debate that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) requested at the start of business questions so that we can discuss the importance of supporting small businesses all year round, not just on one day of the year?

Chris Grayling: The Government are always working to support and encourage small businesses, whether by changing procurement rules or, where possible, by removing red tape, but I also think that the work done by Members on both sides of the House, and not just on Small Business Saturday but across the year, to help and support businesses in their constituencies is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman will know, as indeed we all do, that the job of running a small business is pretty tough: it is often a seven-day-a-week job, and often with 12 or 18-hour days. It is immensely valuable to our society that we have people who are willing to commit that level of effort to run small businesses in our communities. They hold our communities together. We will celebrate them this Saturday. I commend all Members for the work they will be doing, this weekend and throughout the year, to support small businesses in their constituencies.

Points of Order

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given notice to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who, on 3 November, following publication of the second report by the Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted:
	“Read the FAC report on UK involvement in Syria: role of ctte is to scrutinise current government policy—not set conditions on any future policy.”
	Standing Order No. 152 says that Select Committees are
	“appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of…government departments”.
	How they do that is up to them. The Liaison Committee said in its second report of the Session 2012-13 on Select Committee effectiveness that
	“select committees should influence policy and have an impact on Government departments”.
	It also said:
	“The extent of this influence and impact is the primary measure of the effectiveness of select committees.”
	Furthermore, on 5 November the Minister answered an urgent question on human rights in Egypt and expressed the hope that I was speaking as an individual and not as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairs are plainly unable to secure the opinion of their Committee in response to an urgent question, but they do have a mandate, as a Chair elected by the whole House, and it seemed at least a discourtesy to that mandate for a Minister to try to diminish that authority. Through the Foreign Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, I drew the Minister’s attention to Standing Order No. 152 and sought a private assurance from him that he now understood the position of Select Committees and their Chairs. Despite repeated requests to receive that private assurance, it has not been forthcoming, and I regret that I now need to seek your clarification that my understanding of Standing Orders and the appropriate courtesy for the Minister in the Chamber is indeed correct.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this point of order. First, I can confirm that it is entirely a matter for Select Committees to interpret the terms of reference set by the House and to decide for themselves what subjects of inquiry to pursue. I would suggest that it is both inappropriate and unwise for Ministers to comment on such matters. To put it bluntly, they should stick to their last. They have responsibilities, and it is to the execution of those responsibilities that they should dedicate themselves. They need not, and should not, stray beyond that.
	Secondly, I can confirm that the Liaison Committee has recommended that Select Committees should seek to influence Government policy, and indeed the House has endorsed that recommendation. I would go further and say that it is a matter of some concern if there are Ministers who are unaware of that important fact. I hope that from now on they will not be.
	Thirdly, I can confirm that the Chairs of departmental Select Committees, including, obviously, the hon. Gentleman, have been directly elected by the House, and that gives them a particular status and authority. Of course, on many occasions they will want to speak in a personal capacity and not in that role. Once again, we do not need Ministers telling Select Committee Chairmen what they should or should not be doing. In terms of what is orderly conduct in the House, Ministers, like everybody else, can leave that to the Chair.
	May I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for the valuable contribution that his Committee and its report on the extension of offensive British military operations to Syria have made to discussions in the House in the past few weeks? I believe, and I hope I can say this without fear of contradiction, that Members in all parts of the House, whatever their views on that matter, have found the Committee’s exposition of the issues very helpful indeed.

Bill Esterson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been very supportive of those of us who have raised the plight of children in care and care leavers. As I think you know, I chair the all-party group on looked-after children and care leavers. It meets about every six weeks, and it invariably books the Boothroyd room because of the high level of interest and the fact that 90 young people, with additional adults in support, travel to its meetings from all over the country. There is invariably standing room only.
	I have been advised that the room booking for next week’s meeting has been taken by the Liaison Committee. I understand the process by which these things happen, but no other room in the House can accommodate such large numbers. As you know, Mr Speaker, this is an incredibly important area. I am sure that supporting these young people is a matter of great importance to all Members. What advice can you give me and the all-party group’s secretariat on how to address this problem? Otherwise it will be very difficult for the young people and those supporting them to attend next week’s meeting.

Mr Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Simply as a matter of fact, I should say to him that Committees always take precedence in the allocation of such rooms, so there is nothing untoward or indeed unusual about that, although I recognise the very considerable inconvenience and potential dilemma caused to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, as well as to those planning to attend such a meeting.
	I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Administration Committee is reviewing the room booking system. Given what he has told the House, I strongly encourage him to make representations to the Administration Committee—perhaps directly to its Chair—to try to progress matters. A conversation with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) might be useful, in addition to any written evidence that the hon. Gentleman may propose to submit.
	So far as concerns the question of whether a room can be found for next week, the hon. Gentleman had probably better have private discussions if he needs a room. We will see whether anything can be done if such a need remains.
	If there are no further points of order, we will now proceed to the main business.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Before I ask the Minister to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I need to say the following. I remind the House that I have certified the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill under Standing Order No 83J in relation to England and Wales. I further remind the House that this does not affect proceedings in the debate on Second Reading, or indeed in Committee or on Report. After Report, I will consider the Bill again for certification if it has been amended, and the relevant Legislative Grand Committee will be asked to consent to certified provisions.

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Every hon. Member will know of a charity or charities doing extraordinary work in their constituency, as will you, Mr Speaker. Many have served or will serve as patrons or trustees. They may even have subjected themselves to ritual humiliation to raise money and awareness. I have dressed up as a sumo wrestler, carried a pedometer for a week and even lost two stone to race a charger around the Newmarket July course. Charities channel the best of our instincts against the worst that life can inflict, whether that is sickness of mind and body, entrenched poverty or natural disaster.
	So often, charities lead the way for us in Government to follow. Long before there was an Education Act, an NHS or a welfare state, charities that knew people could not wait had set up hospitals, schools and almshouses. Today, their compassion and kindness are matched by ideas and innovation. When Paula and Robert Maguire posted their first ice bucket challenge video, they expected to raise about £500 for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, but the campaign went viral, many of us joined in and they ended up raising £7 million. Let us look at Bristol Together, a social enterprise that buys and refurbishes properties and employs ex-offenders to carry out the work: that social investment is transforming lives.
	The Government are committed to a flourishing civil society. We have protected the budget of the Office for Civil Society, we are expanding the brilliant National Citizen Service and we are rolling out more locally designed social impact bonds. Along with those opportunities, there are challenges. Perhaps more than any other kind of enterprise, charities trade on their reputation. Scandals of poor governance or unscrupulous fundraising undermine public trust, tarnishing the vast majority of charities that are well run and seek only to do good.

Edward Garnier: I could not agree more with the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend in describing, to use an awful expression, the charitable landscape. I am a patron of Unlock and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. Both organisations have concerns, which I hope he can allay, that this much needed legislation might make it more difficult for them—bearing in mind that the subjects that interest them are prisons, prison reform and the condition of prisoners—to have among their trustees people with criminal convictions. The point is obvious, but I am sure that he can deal with it.

Matthew Hancock: I can give some assurance to my hon. Friend—

Bernard Jenkin: And learned.

Matthew Hancock: Sorry, my hon. and learned Friend.

Edward Garnier: Right honourable.

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. and learned Friend. If he would like to raise it any further, I could continue. I commend the two charities of which he is a trustee for their work. While protecting charities through the Bill, we will of course seek to support the good work that excellent charities do. The Bill proposes extra restrictions for those with unspent convictions. However, the Charity Commission will be able to waive those restrictions and, as with almost all the extra powers of the Charity Commission, it will be possible to appeal to the charity tribunal. I hope that he is reassured by the safeguards that are in the Bill, and that we can work with him to ensure that they are applied properly to charities that work in the important area he mentions.

Edward Garnier: My right hon. Friend has been extremely clear and helpful. May I make him an offer? I know of his success at Newmarket racecourse. There is a very good racecourse, Leicester racecourse, in my constituency. If he would ever like to run there, he should let me know.

Matthew Hancock: I very am grateful for that unexpected invitation. I am dearly tempted. I hope that Unlock and the Prison Reform Trust will work with us to ensure that the Bill passes in a form that supports the important work that they do.
	On the broader question of supporting the reputation of charities, by one measure trust in the sector is at a seven-year low. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, confident and thriving charitable sector.
	The purpose of the Bill is twofold: first to tackle the challenges and then to unlock new opportunities. The main provisions of the Bill fall into three main areas: first, strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers, including over trustee disqualification; secondly, the regulation of charity fundraising; and, thirdly, the new social investment power for charities.
	Let me turn to the Charity Commission’s powers. The purpose of the Charity Commission is to ensure that each of the 164,000 charities in England and Wales pursues its charitable objectives. Set up in 1853, it has done a century and a half of good work, but two years ago the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee found that it was failing in its core duty. In particular, they found that it was not doing enough to tackle the abuse of charitable status. The NAO made a series of recommendations to improve the commission’s effectiveness.
	The coalition Government published proposals for new powers based on those recommendations. Following a public consultation, the draft Protection of Charities Bill was published. Pre-legislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords have resulted in further refinement. I thank all the Members, peers and others who have improved the Bill that is before the House today. These measures are just one part of a wider programme of reform, aimed at turning the Charity Commission into a tough, clear and proactive regulator.

Bernard Jenkin: It pains me to point out that my right hon. Friend has left out the significant post-legislative scrutiny of the Charities Act 2006 that was conducted by my Committee, the Public Administration Committee, in the last Parliament, which was the prime precursor of this Bill. I also sat on the Joint Committee that performed the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.
	Will he say something about recent controversies, for example those around charitable fundraising? The Select Committee is very frustrated that we are conducting significant inquiries that the regulator, the Charity Commission, should be conducting, but it does not necessarily have the power to hold its hearings in public in a way that would demonstrate its regulatory role.

Matthew Hancock: I was going to come on to the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee in making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. I am very grateful for the work that he did at the end of the last Parliament, after the National Audit Office report, to make sure that when we had a Bill, it gave the commission the necessary powers.
	We believe that the Charity Commission has the power to convene meetings in public. However, I recognise that there is a question over whether it does so. During the passage of the Bill, we will look at that point in more detail. We are prepared to accept amendments, if they are necessary to bring clarity on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Andrew Murrison: I agree with my right hon. Friend that pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny are extraordinarily important in this place. Will he observe, for the record, how much legislative scrutiny is being performed by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, since there are precisely no Opposition Back-Bench Members in the House?

Matthew Hancock: I hope that this Bill can unite both sides of the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to her place. My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and it will appear on the record, but I do not want to get into an unnecessary dispute with the Opposition, given that I hope we will have all-party support for this important Bill which will strengthen the role of the Charity Commission and, ultimately, be in the best interests of charities throughout the land.
	As I said, we want to provide a tough, clear and proactive regulator. Under the strong and capable leadership of William Shawcross and Paula Sussex, there has been a direct focus on tackling abuse and mismanagement. However, an effective regulator needs to have teeth. As the NAO reported, the commission needs our help to address the “gaps and deficiencies” in its legal powers. The Bill will close those gaps in the commission’s capabilities, as well as tackling a number of damaging loopholes in charity law.
	Let me briefly outline the five new powers that the Bill confers. These powers will help to protect the public, the staff and the people our charities serve from those who would seek to exploit them. First, the Bill will extend the automatic disqualification criteria. Currently, the focus of the law is on barring people who have misappropriated charitable assets, but the criteria are far too narrow. We will extend them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, to include people with unspent convictions for money laundering, bribery, perjury or misconduct in public office, those on the sex offenders register, and those convicted for terrorism offences, including individuals subject to an asset-freezing designation.
	Secondly, the Charity Commission will be given new powers to disqualify in instances where an individual has behaved in a way that makes them unfit to be a charity trustee, acting on a case-by-case basis and using its judgment and discretion. That new power is essential to empower the Charity Commission to tackle those who would bring charities into disrepute, and I hope that it will be used with care and decisiveness.
	Thirdly, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new official warning power in response to low-level misconduct. That will allow a more proportionate approach for less serious cases. Fourthly, the Bill grants a new power that allows the Charity Commission to direct the winding up of a charity following a statutory inquiry. That would apply if the commission proves that a charity is not operating, or that its purposes could be promoted more effectively by ceasing to operate, and that to do so would be in the public interest. We expect that power to be used in limited circumstances, and it is subject to several safeguards.
	Fifthly, the Bill closes a loophole that allows offending trustees to resign before they are removed by the commission, and then act as a trustee for a different charity without fear of repercussion. That will ensure that trustees are no longer able to escape accountability if they abuse their position of trust. As with all the commission’s existing powers, all five of those proposals would be subject to the general duty to have regard to best practice. With the exception of the official warnings power, all the commission’s new powers are subject to a right of appeal to the charity tribunal.
	All five measures that I have outlined are essential to protecting the interests and reputation of the vast majority of charities that are run by people of great integrity. The Charity Commission was closely involved in developing the powers, and it fully supports them. In addition, independent research for the Charity Commission found that 92% of charities supported new, tougher powers for the regulator.
	We also intend to remove clause 9, which was added on Report in the Lords. We have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of that clause, as it attempts to encompass complex case law into a single statutory provision. It would also impose a major new regulatory responsibility on the commission. Clause 9 was not proposed because of concerns about charities in general, but in a narrow attempt by the other place to undermine the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. It is regrettable that a Bill with widespread support was used in that way, and we cannot allow that to stand. I urge the House to reject that anomalous clause and consider the matter elsewhere.
	The challenge of regulating charity fundraising has already been mentioned. We can be incredibly proud that we are one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to charitable giving, but although people are happy to give, they do not want to be bullied or harassed into doing so. A voluntary donation must be voluntary. Earlier this year we heard about the tragic case of Olive Cooke, Britain’s longest-serving poppy seller. For years, she was targeted with hundreds of cold calls and requests for money. More than 70 charities bought her details or swapped them with other charities, and in one month alone she apparently received 267 charity letters. Sadly, since then more cases of unscrupulous fundraising practices have come to light, and we must act.
	We began by asking Sir Stuart Etherington to review the regulation of fundraising over the summer, backed by a cross-party panel of peers, and I thank them for their work. Sir Stuart recommended a new, tougher framework of self-regulation, and we are working with charities to deliver that. Lord Grade of Yarmouth will chair the new independent body at the heart of that framework. It will be paid for by large fundraising charities, and it will be able to adjudicate against any organisation that is undertaking charity fundraising. The body will be accompanied by a fundraising preference service—similar to the telephone preference service—which will give the public greater control over their consent to receive charity fundraising requests.
	Next, we will prohibit contractors from raising funds for a charity unless the fundraising agreement between them explains how the contractor will protect people from undue pressure, and sets out how compliance will be monitored by the charity. It will require large charities to include a section in their trustees’ annual report on the fundraising undertaken by them or on their behalf. That will include an explanation of how they protect the public in general, and vulnerable people in particular, from undue pressures and other poor practices.

Bernard Jenkin: The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—or PACAC, as we call ourselves—is concluding an inquiry into charitable fundraising, alongside our other inquiry into Kids Company. I will not pre-empt the outcome of those two inquiries, but we are concentrating our inquiries on the conduct of trustees in these matters, and their responsibility to oversee and support charitable organisations so that they reflect their values in their operations as much as in their objectives. We are making recommendations on that because it might be insufficient to rely on processes and structures to ensure that things are ethically and properly run.

Matthew Hancock: I welcome that review, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can consider—and where appropriate take on board—any recommendations to improve the Bill. I am glad that the work of that Committee is taking place concurrently, and I hope that recommendations will come forward in time for them to be considered for the Bill.

Andrew Murrison: How can we make more explicit the amount of money spent on management overheads, and in particular the £80 to £120 per direct debit set up that goes to chugging agencies? That must be made crystal clear to people. That is, on average, the amount for the first year of any direct debit set up in favour of a charity. At the moment, people are not clear how much of their generosity is being expended on management overall and on that practice in particular.

Matthew Hancock: I am a great fan of transparency and a supporter of transparency across Government. We should consider carefully whether further transparency should be applied to charities, and how that is best delivered. I have no doubt that transparency begins at home for charities, and best practice is for them to be widely transparent about their operations. There is a question about whether we should do more in law, and balanced arguments in both directions. I hope we can consider that during the passage of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Do any of the new powers that the Bill gives the Charity Commission deal with charities that depart from their original charitable ambitions and disproportionately become political funding and campaigning organisations?

Matthew Hancock: We took action towards the end of the previous Parliament to ensure that the legal framework for charities and other organisations means that they do not cross over into direct partisan political work. A review is under way into how the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 has worked. There are questions about whether that needs to go further, but the best place to deal with such issues is in the review and during scrutiny of the Bill. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and it is important that our review fully considers the impact of the 2014 Act.
	We regard the Etherington package, including the fundraising preference service and a move to opt-in for further contact, as the minimum necessary to rebuild public trust. We propose that regulation of fundraising happens on a self-regulatory basis, but that self-regulation must implement the review’s recommendations in full. Some people have rightly asked what will happen if self-regulation fails. We want it to work, but we are also clear that practices must change. In Committee, we intend to bring forward amendments that will strengthen the Government’s reserve powers to intervene if the self-regulation recommended by Sir Stuart fails. Predatory fundraising targeted at vulnerable people is wrong. It has shaken public confidence in charities and we are determined to stamp it out.
	Alongside tackling those challenges, the Bill aims to open up new opportunities.

Bernard Jenkin: I am terribly sorry for intervening again, and most grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I regret that I cannot stay to take part in the debate. The House will need to know that my Committee will produce its reports in January, in good time for the conclusion of the passage of the Bill. Before he leaves the matter of fundraising, will he bear in mind the concern of many people about some charities that raise a substantial part of their income from foreign sources? Security services are concerned that organisations posing as charities might be receiving funds from abroad for nefarious purposes. Will he consider introducing measures to the Bill at a later stage to deal with that matter? I know that that is something that also concerns the Charity Commission.

Matthew Hancock: The Chairman of the Select Committee need not apologise. He can intervene on me as many times as he likes and I will always seek to take his interventions. I know that that must happen, otherwise he will seek to get me in front of him in some other way. On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, that concern has been raised with us. We want to consider the matter in more detail as the Bill passes through the House.
	The Bill seeks to open up opportunities for charities to do more to fulfil their mission by providing a new power of social investment. Social investment seeks a positive social impact and a financial return, trying to make money go further. It is a huge and growing chance for UK charities to make more of their assets in a field where the UK is already the world leader. In 2014, the Law Commission conducted a review of charities’ social investment powers. It found a lack of clarity around charities’ social investment powers and duties, and concluded that that could be deterring some charities from getting involved in this exciting new field.
	UK charities currently hold assets of over £80 billion, but they have made social investments of about only £100 million. We think that with the right support that market could double in the next few years. The Bill will ensure that more charities have a chance to take full advantage of social investment should they so wish. It removes the existing uncertainty by providing a specific new power to make social investments. It also sets out trustees’ duties to ensure that all social investments are made in the best interests of the charity. That will allow charities to make investments with the dual aim of fulfilling their mission and achieving a financial return. It is the way of the future and it is happening here in Britain. We want to support it to go further.
	The work charities do transcends politics and unites hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want all charities to enjoy the very highest levels of public trust and esteem, and the generosity that brings. By delivering a more effective regulator, by tackling unscrupulous fundraising and by unleashing the power of social investment, the Bill will strengthen that trust and allow charities to do more with that generosity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Anna Turley: It is a privilege to respond to the Bill on Second Reading as shadow Civil Society Minister. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for bringing the Bill before us, and for the open and co-operative way in which they have sought to engage with us. It is much appreciated. I thank all the civil servants involved in drafting the Bill, and all the charities and organisations that have contributed to its development and to our understanding. I also thank noble Lords, who used their customary wisdom and experience to refine and improve the Bill in its passage through the other place.
	This is a good and important Bill, and we on the Labour Benches welcome it. There is, of course, some room for improvement, and I will come on to that in my speech, but its objectives are to be welcomed. We all know the vital role that charities play in building a strong and flourishing civic society. Thousands of people around the country give up their time every day to work as trustees and volunteers. Thousands more depend on the vital services they provide. As the Minister said, charities change and save lives. They support the poorest and the most vulnerable. They pick up the pieces of social and economic failures. They heal, they tend the sick, they bring dignity in old age and they give children the best start in life. We owe it to all of them to provide a secure and robust regulatory environment that inspires confidence and allows the sector to flourish.
	The sector has had a difficult year. The regulation of the sector has come under increasing scrutiny and we have seen high-profile cases that have been deeply concerning. We have seen poor governance, financial mismanagement and, as the Minister set out, concerning fundraising methods. These cases are extremely rare, but they are deeply disappointing to the rest of the charitable sector. It is important that we support and encourage confidence in the wider sector by clamping down on any abuse. That is why we welcome the Bill.
	It has been good to see the sector itself step up to the plate to tackle so many of these concerns. It is vital that we play our part in supporting the sector in that process by giving it the legislative and regulatory environment it needs. It is also vital that we get the right balance: a strong and sound regulatory environment that ensures trust but allows charities the freedom to be innovative, enterprising and, crucially, effective in delivering their social aims and objectives.
	We welcome the core aims of the Bill. We support providing stronger protection for charities in England and Wales from individuals who are unfit to be charity trustees. That is vital to ensure good governance and prevent abuse. We support the measures to equip the Charity Commission with new and strengthened powers to tackle abuse more effectively and efficiently. To ensure confidence in the sector, it needs to be able to respond quickly and decisively to any concerns raised. Further clarifications are required, however, and we will work with the Minister to resolve them in Committee.
	I want to put on record at this point my pleasure in hearing the Minister say the Government will use the Committee stage to look again at fundraising: at whether self-regulation is sufficient and what steps we can take if it fails. We look forward to working with him on that.
	We welcome the aim to give charities a new power to make social investments; some are already doing that, but it is important we give charities the reassurance to enable them to do so. We know that one in three British consumers will pay more for products with a positive social or environmental outcome. It is important that we enable the charitable sector to encourage that.
	There are some areas, however, where we believe the Bill can be improved. We will look to work with the Government during the progress of the Bill in Committee to do so. We will be seeking to discuss the following points.
	First, on the freedom to speak and engage in political discourse, we continue to oppose the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. We intend to use the passage of the Bill to highlight and defend the right of charities by law to campaign and speak out on issues in line with their objectives. So often, it is charities that end up picking up the pieces of our policy failures. It is vital that we give them the right to campaign on their issues, and to challenge and hold us to account. That is a key part of a strong, healthy democratic and civic society.
	Secondly, on clause 9 and the disposal of assets, the clause sets out that
	“The Charity Commission shall ensure that independent charities are not compelled to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes.”
	We will continue to defend clause 9, so as to give housing associations the statutory backing to ensure they can make their decisions in the best interests of their tenants, and not be bullied by a Government determined to sell off and run down affordable housing. We think it is absolutely right that charities have the freedom to dispose of their assets in the way that they see fit.
	Thirdly, on the protection of children and vulnerable adults, the Bill provides an opportunity to better protect children and vulnerable people. We are grateful that the Government accepted proposals in the other place to include people on the sex offenders register as among those who will be debarred from being trustees, but we believe there are other measures we can look at to strengthen that area. We will bring them forward in Committee.
	Finally, on clarifying some of the powers of the Charity Commission, the Bill seeks to strengthen the powers of the Charity Commission. We believe there should be a strong, well supported regulator of charities that acts fairly and has the appropriate powers. Ultimately, the regulator must preserve public trust and confidence in charities. However, some provisions in the Bill could threaten charities’ independence. For example, there are no objections in principle to giving the Charity Commission the power to give warnings to a charity, but the current drafting raises some concerns within the sector.
	For example, the commission can issue a warning if it thinks there has been a breach of duty or trust or other misconduct or mismanagement. It is possible that the commission could issue a warning about an issue of relatively low concern. Also, a disagreement between the trustees and the commission could arise about whether the warning was justified. It is therefore important to attach safeguards to the issuing of a warning, and failure to comply with it should not in itself have significant consequences that could be disastrous for charities. I hope that we can continue to discuss the matter further in Committee. In addition, the commission should give adequate notice of its intention to issue a statutory warning.
	These are issues that should be discussed in Committee because clearer guidelines should exist on the number of days and other protective remedial powers. Given the implications a warning would have for the charity in question, we should also consider a right of appeal to the charity tribunal. I look forward to working with Ministers on those issues as we go through Committee.
	In summary, we believe all these areas can be discussed and looked at in more detail as we take the Bill forward in Committee. This is an important Bill. It has some room for improvement, but offers a great deal to build trust and confidence in the charitable sector, which is why the Opposition will support it. I look forward to working with Ministers in Committee.

Fiona Bruce: I rise to support the rationale behind the Bill, which is of great importance to many members of the public. Its purposes are indeed to protect the public from unscrupulous fundraisers and to stop individuals who run charities abusing them. I agree that action should be taken in such cases, and I agree that the Charity Commission should have appropriate powers where misconduct is proven to have occurred.
	I am pleased to note that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said that
	“it is widely acknowledged that deliberate wrongdoing in charities is extremely rare”,
	and it is important to remember that when we debate this Bill. There are many millions of people across the country who devote themselves and give selflessly of their time to charities. It is very important that we do nothing that in any way inhibits them from engaging and contributing to this important part of our civic society.
	Having highlighted that motivation, I now want to highlight some of my concerns about the Bill, particularly about some of the new powers it contains. I hope that expressing my concerns is helpful and that they can be explored further in Committee. I speak with particular reference to the new measures in clauses 3 and 11, and the wide-ranging wording of the powers, which I fear could severely curb civic engagement, possibly deterring responsible people from wanting to be appointed as an officer to a charity.
	I have more than 30 years’ experience of working in private practice on charity law, and the representation of charities was a particular part of that practice. I know that it has become increasingly difficult over those years to get individuals to step up to the plate, to coin a term, and to agree to an appointment in a charity. That often proves to be one of the challenges that new charities face, particularly—and interestingly—when it comes to the appointment of a treasurer.
	I come to this debate, as I say, with over three decades of practical experience of working in this field. I want to ensure that we encourage and do not deter the very responsible people that the Bill is designed to support.
	I note that clause 11 provides for new powers to suspend and disqualify. It has an extensive list of reasons within it, but I note that these could in future be varied by Ministers through the laying of new regulations—subject to those regulations being consulted on. We all know, however, that with the best will in the world among the Government, consultations can often reach only a few members of the public. There is the further problem of the regulations being scrutinised only by a few Members in Committee. That is why I am concerned about the excessive powers that will be granted if the Bill is passed, which if extended could come to embrace actions that might not have been fully scrutinised or intended by Members. I enter that caveat about the extension of disqualifications merely by Ministers laying new regulations.
	The Bill gives immense power to the Charity Commission. Indeed, in its policy paper of May 2015, the Charity Commission acknowledged that it was gaining
	“a significant new power” to disqualify people from serving as trustees or senior managers of charities. I am concerned about the wording. The Charity Commission is able under clause 1(1) to issue a warning,
	“to a charity trustee or trustee for a charity who it considers has committed…misconduct or mismanagement”.
	Clearly, “who it considers” is a very wide-ranging phrase. I note that clause 1(2) allows the Charity Commission to issue a warning that it can “publish”. Yes, the charity or person subject to that warning can respond, but the publication might already have occurred, so I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the charity in general and the individual. I am worried if there is an opportunity to publish without an opportunity to respond, and I would be grateful if Minister corrected me if I am wrong on that point.
	Let me deal with some of the conditions for disqualification. The Charity Commission interprets unfitness to be a trustee to mean failure of honesty and integrity, competence or credibility, the latter being defined as undermining the confidence of the public. That is what I want to highlight in the next part of my speech—how the Charity Commission could take steps to act and issue a warning solely on the one criterion of conduct that might damage public trust and undermine public confidence.
	The Charity Commission says that it will use an evidence base relating to the knowledge it gains from the surveys it takes into public trust. I am rather concerned about that. Does it mean that the Charity Commission could carry out a poll, asking people with certain views whether they think the public would be more or less likely to trust an individual or charity? What if those views were very much in the minority or if the views were greatly opposed to current Government policy—views on foreign policy, for example?
	That is quite a broad-ranging power, and so far as I can see there are no requirements for any independent review from the Government before the warning is issued. It seems to be based on an individual undertaking some activity or saying something that might be contrary to the views held by the majority of the public who respond to a survey. When the Bill refers to “any conduct”, does that include conduct that someone might have undertaken several years before becoming a trustee? We all know—including many of us in the House—that views can change over time. Many of us might have expressed views some years ago that have changed. How is an individual going to be protected from action taken against them, on the basis of this Bill, which could have far-reaching repercussions?
	This is not a merely theoretical issue. Let me highlight how serious a problem this is. I remind Members of the challenges faced by the Plymouth Brethren in the last Parliament. Their charitable registration was threatened because of the interpretation of the words “public benefit” within the Charities Act 2006. We are fortunate now to have William Shawcross as chairman of the Charity Commission. He is an excellent head, a man who possesses wisdom and expresses his opinions, conducts his deliberations and makes his decisions very carefully and with great common sense. Following his appointment, I felt that an appropriate approach was being taken to the plight in which the Plymouth Brethren found themselves when their charitable status was challenged. The case was to go to a tribunal, the Plymouth Brethren had to engage lawyers, and more than 300 churches were affected.
	The Plymouth Brethren are a long-established denomination that exists throughout the country, but the challenge that they faced was very serious. They had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal advice. As I have said before, it was to their the credit that in the past they had done an enormous amount of voluntary work without shouting about it, but now they had to start producing documentation, and indeed they produced some excellent booklets citing the work that they had done to the public benefit. They continue to do that work, one example being disaster relief.
	Some major debates were held about the case in the House. More than 40 Members of Parliament attended a debate in Westminster Hall to speak up for the Plymouth Brethren and to say that the Charity Commission’s action should never have been taken, because it had been based on a subjective interpretation of the words “public benefit”. Ultimately, as we know, the commission withdrew its action, and the charitable status of the Plymouth Brethren—and many other charities that had been standing by and waiting for the decision—was secured. However, we do not want a rerun of that case.
	Some may claim that minority views undermine public confidence, but where would the suffragettes have been had all this been happening years ago? Our society contains a wide range of views and beliefs, which are often held with passion and principle. Disagreement is common, as we saw in the House only yesterday; indeed, it is a characteristic of a free society. However—and social media can be very cruel in this regard—many people despise or reject others entirely on the basis of their sincerely held but different, or minority, views. Charities are often formed for the purpose of protecting minorities, and it is important for us to ensure that genuine people with genuinely held minority views are protected from what I am sure would be the unintended consequences of the Bill.
	Let me return to the subject of faith groups. Many religions in this country espouse views that are rejected by the majority, and a number of those views are very strongly rejected. Creationism, for instance, cannot be taught in schools as a scientific fact, but one would hope that it can still be expounded in RE lessons as a belief. If a charity’s work involved the promotion of creationism as a belief, would that be considered likely to undermine public confidence? There are many other examples—for example, different views on sexual ethics.
	I am not, in this context, talking about minorities. A few weeks ago I spoke to a Church of England vicar—and it should be borne in mind that the Church of England is our state Church—who said that he had gone into a school and spoken about a particular view from a biblical perspective, and had gained the distinct impression that he should not come back and talk about the issue again. We must protect people with sincerely held but minority beliefs from the chilling effect that legislation can have on free speech in our society.
	Let me now say something about the connection between the new powers in the Bill and the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. I understand that the Government are seeking to ensure that charities are not abused for extremist purposes. The problem is, however, that there does not currently appear to be a clear definition of extremism. That problem affects the Bill, and I think that it could have a very negative impact. The Government’s information document on the counter-extremism strategy defines extremism as
	“the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
	That sounds fine, but previous definitions contained two or three additional words that now appear to be missing. They referred to
	“mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
	That was one of our fundamental British values, alongside democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty: mutual respect and tolerance of people who held different faiths and beliefs.
	In March, I said in the House:
	“It is entirely right that we should respect other people, including those with other beliefs, and to respect their right to hold those beliefs”.
	I added, however, that we should be careful not to conflate that
	“with a requirement to respect all other beliefs, which is quite a different thing altogether.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 496.]
	That is the problem with the current definition of extremism. If I say that I respect scientologists but I do not respect scientology, I mean that I respect those who hold different beliefs, but I do not respect the belief of scientology. Does that make me an extremist? We must be very careful about the way in which we define extremism, and in that connection it is interesting to note that the Government have yet to provide a statutory definition of non-violent extremism.
	We all value free speech very highly in the House. A free society is based on disagreement and mutual respect, and I believe that that is strengthened, not compromised, when I respect my fellow citizens without necessarily respecting their beliefs. I mentioned the suffragettes earlier, but the issue of slavery is another example. The wording of the current definition is deeply troubling, and we need to clarify it, because otherwise we could end up contributing to the marginalisation that feeds extremism. Open dialogue with those who hold different views is essential if we are to understand each other’s views, reduce prejudice, and promote community cohesion.
	The role that faith groups play in community cohesion through their involvement in the voluntary sector is staggering. Research carried out earlier in the year established that they contribute about £3 billion to social action in their communities, and that is just in monetary terms. In my view, the social cohesion that they provide is unquantifiable. Thousands of churches have run, or helped to run, charity projects for decades. It concerns me greatly that the removal—or the mere deterrence—of those who hold faith-related views that, in our present society, might not be popular, and certainly could not be considered mainstream, could deprive the charitable sector of valuable experience and expertise for decades.
	Having had more than 30 years of experience in legal practice and of working with the charitable sector, I know that people are increasingly worried about falling foul of legislation and, as a result, are not becoming charity trustees. Will the Minister look again at the powers relating to disqualification? It is interesting that he used the term “self-regulation”. I would not like to become self-disqualified. I am concerned because the powers are so wide, and we need to ensure that the thousands of experienced servant-hearted volunteers involved in the charitable sector are not deterred from being involved in our civic society. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, and I would be grateful if they looked at these concerns. I am sure that that would be an unintended consequence, but we cannot afford any further marginalisation and exclusion of people from a sector in which they play such a vital role.

Tommy Sheppard: I rise in my capacity as the Scottish National party’s spokesperson on the Cabinet Office to make a brief contribution to the debate. You will note on the Benches behind me the absence of Scottish Members of Parliament. Please do not take that to indicate a lack of interest; it is merely an acknowledgement of the fact that the provisions in the Bill do not apply to Scotland and that our constituents will not be encumbered by them. That said, we have a few observations to make on the measures.
	This is a certified Bill, but you will note that there is no willingness on the part of Scottish Members to take part in the debate anyway, so perhaps this could serve as an illustration of whether or not it was really necessary to burden the House with the amendments to Standing Orders relating to English votes for English laws. I want to make an effort to be constructive and to help the Government, so if you wish to speed up the passage of this legislation, I can assure you that we will not seek to make any further contribution to, or have any further influence on, the matter under discussion. You could therefore dispense with the legislative consent stage, should that become necessary.
	There is a different system in Scotland, obviously, and I pay tribute to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator—OSCR—which has, since 2005, provided support for 23,500 charities of all shapes and sizes in Scotland. I want to pay particular tribute to OSCR’s trustees. I have some personal experience in this area, because I served for seven years as a trustee of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society, which is one of the larger such organisations in Scotland. It has benefited greatly from the support it has received from OSCR. That said, even though we have a different system, we live on the same island and the regulations that apply in England and Wales set some of the context in which we operate in Scotland, so we have an interest in the legislation relating to England and Wales that is passed in this House.

Susan Elan Jones: May I make a quick point? Not many people will be aware—I myself was not until about six months ago—that every charity in Scotland is registered with the regulatory body, whereas in England and Wales many of the smaller charities are not. I think that that is of relevance to the wider debate, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has a view on the matter.

Tommy Sheppard: All I can tell you is that it works well in Scotland, and we tend to take the approach “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
	I will make a couple of points on specific aspects of the Bill in a moment, but first I want to welcome the Minister’s general support for the role of charities in our society throughout the country. It is important to recognise, however, that the people involved in charitable organisations are not just there as service providers who deliver things. They are also a valuable source of information and opinion, which can inform many of our social policies, and despite the Minister’s support, the Government may have some bridges to mend with the charitable sector in some areas of social policy. In particular, more than 60 disability organisations and charities have been critical of the Government’s changes to disability benefits. Let us contrast that with the situation in Scotland, where the leading children’s charities have actually praised the Scottish Government for amending some of the regulations.
	Turning to the Bill, there are some clauses in which you are bringing the situation into line with that in Scotland. Clause 2 relates to the time limit on the suspension of trustees and clause 8 relates to property. These provisions already apply in Scotland in more or less the same way. I note that in clause 10, which covers the criteria for the disqualification of trustees, you are going a lot further than we have done in Scotland. Our approach would be to let you get on with that and see how it works out—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has frequently used the word “you”. Actually, that was quite appropriate in the first part of his speech, because he was in a way addressing the Chair. However, when he is referring to the Government, it is better to say “the Government”, or “the Minister”, rather than “you”, because I will not take the blame.

Tommy Sheppard: I stand corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sometimes I use the word “you” in its Scottish vernacular to imply “one”, but I will try to refer to the Government in the third person.
	There are some clauses in which you are bringing the situation into line, and some in which you go further, and it is our intention to wait and see what happens. A review is under way in Scotland, which has in part come about because of the discussions that are taking place in England and Wales.
	Our main concern relates to the regulations on the ability of charities to raise money. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has expressed concern that the high-profile cases in English charities relating to the misuse of funds, and the inappropriate ways of raising funds, will have an effect on charities in Scotland, even though they are not part of the same regulatory framework; they could effectively be tarred with the same brush.
	We see no great need to change the funding regulations at the moment. Our charitable fundraising arrangements are essentially self-regulatory, and we would like that to continue. However, a discussion involving the charitable sector is under way in Scotland and we are determined that, whatever happens, we will arrive at an appropriate agreement, in which the charitable sector will be involved. It is a matter of debate whether we continue with self-regulation or whether we see the Government becoming more directly involved. The Ministers here have taken the view that this Government should be more directly involved, and that they wish this House to be the ultimate place to which the regulatory system is accountable. We shall watch the situation with interest, and we wish you very well in your endeavours to improve the regulation of charities in England and Wales.

Maggie Throup: I am delighted to be able to speak today on this very important Bill, which I believe will protect and strengthen the governance of our charities. Our charities play an extremely important role across our nation, and I believe we are stronger for the extensive work that they carry out. We would be so much poorer as a nation if we did not have our amazing charities. It is the hundreds of thousands of generous volunteers who really make a difference, and 41% of people have reported taking part in volunteering in the last year. That is a massive 21 million people across the UK.
	Only three weeks ago, every member of my staff took a day’s holiday and spent it volunteering across the constituency as part of my inaugural Erewash volunteering day. One of my staff volunteered at the homelessness charity, the Canaan Trust—which I will talk more about later—and then went on to help with street collections for Children in Need. Another volunteered at a church food bank, then helped to serve a two-course lunch at the Pavilion luncheon club organised by Community Concern Erewash. She also helped to wash up afterwards, which I thought was very noble of her! A third member of my staff helped at the local hospice and joined the Treetops garden club. The club is very proud that one of its team has just been awarded Hospice UK’s volunteer gardener of the year award.
	My senior caseworker spent the day at Direct Help and Advice, based in Ilkeston, which has just been awarded Big Lottery funding. And of course I did some volunteering too. I visited a local church to find out more about its outreach community projects. One of these involved chair-based exercises, which are a lot more energetic than they sound. But that project offered more than just exercise; it offered a chat over a cup of tea at the end of the session, and therefore provided social inclusion as well. My whole team really enjoyed the day, and we have decided to make it an annual event. We are already looking forward to next year’s Erewash volunteering day and to working with even more local charities.

Wendy Morton: Does my hon. Friend agree that volunteering and charitable giving are not just about giving, because when we volunteer and give we also gain a great deal from it, often from the experience of getting to know different people?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend is completely right, and we both experienced that in our time volunteering in Rwanda as part of the social action there. We thought we were going there to give, but we learned and benefited a great deal from that experience. Whether overseas or in my own constituency, I feel very humble every time I go to see a charity.
	During our day spent volunteering, my staff and I met all the charity volunteers, the staff and the trustees. Trustees play a very important role in a charity—in the past, I have been a trustee of two charities. Before being appointed as a trustee, on both occasions I went through a selection process and was put under scrutiny. This is only right, as trustees hold very responsible roles. Sadly, we have heard some bad news stories recently of instances when trustees may not have been quite as scrupulous as they should have been. This should not happen, as it reflects very badly, and undeservedly, on every charity across the board, even those not involved. That is why I support this Bill and its aim to strengthen governance and give more powers to the Charity Commission to remove inappropriate trustees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out, regulatory abuse in charities is rare, but it is vital that measures are in place to ensure that the public, and indeed the many charity volunteers, do not lose confidence when such incidents happen.
	Another aspect of the Bill is to protect members of the public from unscrupulous and unrelenting fundraisers. Once again, there have been some very disturbing stories in the media recently, which simply end up reflecting badly on every charity, even though so many are not involved in such procedures.

Kevin Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that “chugging”, as it is called, also puts people off donating, particularly when they hear about the sorts of fees these people receive for the donations they collect from the public?

Maggie Throup: I completely agree. When we see these people on the streets, we tend to avoid them. I think it affects the local shopkeepers as well, as people get a bit fearful of what they are going to find on their high streets.
	It has another effect, too. In their later years, my parents stopped donating to charities when the donations were in any way traceable. This was because after making one donation, they got phone call after phone call trying to persuade them to set up a direct debit. My parents were subjected to just a fraction of the pressure that Olive Cooke suffered, which ended in such a tragedy. With 44% of adults reportedly giving money to charitable causes every month, it is very important that donors feel they can make their donations freely and know that their donations are being spent wisely. This Bill ensures both things.
	Of course, our small local charities do not employ third-party professional fundraisers, but have to use their ingenuity to raise their funds. Members will have heard me talk before about the fundraising events organised by my local hospice, Treetops, which provides amazing care in the community. I have awarded prizes at its dog show, which raised money, and taken part in its sponsored bike ride taking in all its charity shops across Derbyshire—and I did that on a tandem. There is always something happening somewhere in Erewash; there is always a charity event going on somewhere.
	Only last Saturday I popped along to the Christmas fair organised by the League of Friends of Ilkeston Community Hospital. When I got there I was delighted not just to see Father Christmas but to find that Ilkeston Rotary had a stall there, as I knew from last Christmas that it would be selling locally made Christmas cakes which are very tasty, and which have saved me trying to find the time, rather belatedly, to make one. At the Long Eaton Christmas lights switch-on last Thursday, I was able to win on the Scout’s tombola—every ticket was a winner—and buy some handmade Christmas tree decorations from the Women’s Institute stall. All these make fantastic contributions to my local area, and it is much richer as a result.
	I said earlier that I would come back to the Canaan Trust, a Long Eaton-based charity providing much more than just a bed for homeless young men. The social investment part of this Bill will provide the ideal vehicle for this charity, should it wish to provide low-rent accommodation for those young men once they get their lives back on track, and help them move on even further with their lives. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, social investment is the way of the future, and I am delighted that it forms part of this Bill.
	I believe this Bill provides a suitable means of protecting our many charities from unscrupulous behaviour, so maintaining the confidence of the public, the confidence of the many donors, and the confidence of the amazing volunteers as well as those who are employed by the charities. I will want to ensure in Committee that our small local charities will not be penalised in any way as a result of these changes, but I do like the way the Bill provides a mechanism to enable charities to develop social investments that can be of great benefit to those they serve.
	I am delighted to have been able to speak in support of this Bill, with my reservation about its potential impact on small charities such as those I have talked about today, and to outline its benefits to the constituents of Erewash.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate on this Bill. I want to make a few points. I think many people welcome the fact that the Government are taking action to prevent individuals who are unfit to become charity trustees from doing so and are tackling abuse and mismanagement of charities more effectively. However, I have a few questions over some details.
	There is widespread agreement across the voluntary sector and among the general public—this very much recognises what the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) said—about the problem with predatory fundraising when it is done in an unethical way. It is good that the sector itself is coming forward with the idea of a fundraising preference service. That will be very important.
	It is worth bearing in mind, however, that across England and Wales there are 943,000 trustees, and we in this House bear some responsibility for making sure we do not scare them to death with regulation. The bulk of charities in this country are not like Kids Company, which appears to have got away with a remarkable amount. We are talking about people who give up their time to serve on management committees, often when they do not have much time to give up. We do not always do that well in the diversity of trustees. I think the average age is 57, and only about one in 200 is between the ages of 16 and 24, so I would be reluctant to do anything that scares off too many people. However, there is a case for returning to the proposal suggested a few years ago by Lord Hodgson for time limits—for larger charities only; it would be ridiculous for the village hall committee and many smaller management groups. I hope that can be considered during the Bill’s passage.
	I have a couple of other small points. Members have already suggested that clause 1 gives the commission an absolute discretion to publish an official warning to a wider audience. However, charities depend heavily on funding and reputational matters, so if there is no real right to appeal against a warning and no minimum notice period, that needs to be looked at.
	The issue with clause 11, which centres on the power to disqualify from being a trustee, relates to clarity. We agree in principle that, if there is genuine abuse, it is important that such a power can be used. On clear cases, there is a question about whether the amount of discretion available is too wide; many of us agree that that needs to be defined much more clearly. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the issue of past behaviour in her extensive speech.
	I welcome the Bill. It is part of the consideration of how charities develop in the modern world, but we have to be careful. It is so easy for us to add new regulations that frighten charities, especially smaller charities, from doing their work. Often, charities start off very small. For example, Your Space in Black Park in my constituency started off very small, but it has now become a state-of-the-art charity working with children and young people with autism. Such things often begin from little acorns, but we must not smother the little acorns with too many regulations. I am not sure whether it is possible to smother little acorns, but if it is possible I do not think we should do it.
	Although I broadly welcome the Bill, we need to look at some of those details. In the last Parliament, the Government made changes following the Committee stage of the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012. I hope we can debate at a later stage the issues I have raised.

Wendy Morton: It is a pleasure and a privilege to take part in this debate. Charities do fantastic work, both nationally and locally, across the breadth of the country. We have heard some fantastic and inspirational examples from my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is no longer in her place, of the work that goes on up and down the country.
	In the days when I used to run half-marathons, such as the great north run, rather than just run from my office to this Chamber or to the voting Lobby, I was always particularly impressed by the number of charities represented by runners and the generosity and support of the general public. I was often a little disheartened when somebody wearing fancy dress ran passed me at a much quicker speed, but you can’t have it all ways.
	The local charities in my constituency include Rosie’s Helping Hands, which was set up by a couple to help them handle the grief of losing a beloved daughter and to deal with it in a very positive way for our local community. They hold numerous events, including a charitable walk, and the money raised goes into helping children and young people in our local community.
	We also have many local branches of some of the big national charities. Our local branch of the Royal British Legion does so much, like every other branch in the country, to raise awareness and funds for an incredibly important charity that supports armed forces veterans. In the village of Pelsall it encourages the whole of the local community to knit poppies in advance of Remembrance Sunday. The red poppies were placed over the clock tower, and the way in which the charity brought the community together and raised funds is another example of why the charitable community is so important.

Maggie Throup: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is partly about fundraising and partly about the feel-good factor created in communities?

Wendy Morton: I could not agree more. Even I got out the knitting needles and learned how to knit again. It was a case of knit one, purl one and then drop several, but I did my bit, as did everybody else. The community came together, worked together and had a bit of fun for an incredibly worthwhile cause.
	Small charities often play a huge part in our local communities. They provide something over and above, or in addition to, what the Government or the public sector provide. Those small things often make a big difference to the lives of individuals and their families.
	Through my involvement with social action projects over the years, I have been extremely fortunate to get to know many charities, both in the UK and overseas. I have also spent time with other Members on projects working with charities in Rwanda.
	As some Members will be aware, a private Member’s Bill of mine is going through this place, to help Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. I had the great pleasure of visiting the hospital and seeing some of the fantastic work it does in supporting patients. It is involved in building projects and has a chapel, and it does a huge amount of paediatric research. None of that would be possible without the work of the charity and all the people involved in it.
	Sadly, the results of high-profile charity crises can damage trust in charities. It is really important that we do all we can to maintain and strengthen that trust, and the Bill demonstrates the importance of having an effective charity regulator.
	I support the Bill because it will provide stronger protection for charities in England and Wales. It will also equip the Charity Commission with new and stronger powers to tackle charity abuse more effectively and efficiently.

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend is making some strong points in support of the Bill. Does she agree that, in order to keep the flow of funds coming in from the public and from donors, it is vital that abuse is not possible and that the public have confidence that there is a mechanism to tackle it?

Wendy Morton: Absolutely. Trust and confidence are critical. That is why I believe that robust but proportionate action should be taken where serious mismanagement occurs. It is about maintaining and strengthening trust in a vital sector and enabling all charities, both large and small, to continue to do their work.
	I have one plea, which is that the Bill needs to ensure that smaller charities are not disproportionately affected by any bureaucracy or too much legislation. It does not matter whether a charity is small or large: charities have so much to give to our country, society and communities, and I will do all I can to ensure that they get the support they deserve.

Robert Jenrick: I welcome the Bill, which is a much needed and sensible Government reform. I am delighted that they have introduced it.
	Before entering this place, I practised as a solicitor for several years. I practised corporate governance, among other areas, and over the course of the past year, I think we have all come to realise that the governance of charities is in crisis and it is affecting all charities. The large charities are infecting the small charities, which is why it is so important for this House to act.
	As has been said by many Members on both sides of the House, we all support the charities in our constituencies, including those we give to and those of which we are trustees. We want them to thrive and we want public confidence in them to increase, because, undoubtedly, public confidence in charities has been knocked this year. As the head of a charity based in my constituency recently told me, charities are different from many other parts of our society. When large businesses get knocked by scandals, the public turn towards the little guys and confidence in them rises. If there is a horsemeat scandal at Tesco, we all go to our local butchers and sales there start to rise. Charities seem to have the inverse situation. If the big charities get hit by scandals, the little guys suffer as well.
	It is essential that we protect the thousands of excellent small charities that we, as Members of Parliament, get to know more than most members of society. It is for them that we must ensure that the larger charities, in particular, have the highest quality of governance. That comes down to trustees. It has been a torrid year in many respects for how the large charities have behaved, whether the scandals have been about the high salaries of chief executives and the management teams of big charities, about the question of politicisation or, above all, about the question of the inappropriate use of fundraising on our high streets. Of course, there has been the tragic case of Olive Cooke.

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. Does he agree that part of it is about the public having confidence about how much of the pound that they donate ends up going to the good work of the good cause, particularly as with some of the larger charities there have been issues about how much ends up going on overheads and administration?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I want to come on to how we can ensure proper financial management of our charities. That cuts in both directions: how they govern themselves and what percentage of their organisation and resources is deployed on central management.
	Kids Company has seen the last and perhaps most prominent scandal, which has raised all manner of questions about the governance of our most high-profile and largest charities, particularly their capacity to handle their finances appropriately. I do not want to dwell on Kids Company, which is an outlier, but it has done huge damage to other charities. That is why those who have been at the heart of it and those parts of Government that have worked with Kids Company have to take it seriously. It is damaging all our charities throughout the country. The powers in the Bill to bar ineffective and inappropriate trustees from acting as trustees will be tested if there are Kids Company-type scandals in future.

Nigel Huddleston: Is that not at the heart of the matter? The vast majority of people who work with, volunteer for or have leadership positions in charities across the UK generally do the right thing in their day-to-day activities. Through this Bill and other initiatives, we need to try to get the right balance between governance and allowing them to get on with doing the things that they really want to do.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. It is important to remember that the core activities of our charities are rarely questioned. They are usually performed incredibly well and incredibly sensitively and appropriately. The scandals and disappointments tend to come from the way the operation of our charities occurs. That is why it is incredibly important that trustees play their full role in managing, scrutinising and supporting those organisations, as do directors and non-executive directors of our companies.
	The role of a trustee has to be at the heart of it all. The new Bill is important in that regard as the power to bar individuals who are not appropriate to be trustees and who bring charities into disrepute is incredibly important. I would be interested to know from the Minister how many trustees he believes that that would apply to in an average year. Will the difference be marginal, or will it be more significant? As for the question of preventing trustees from moving on, after damaging an organisation, to continue in many others, we all know that many people—many good people—are trustees of several charities and so, inevitably, the bad apples are also involved in many charities. We want to ensure that that involvement cannot continue.
	The power to issue warnings to charities is important if the Charity Commission considers their actions to amount to misconduct or mismanagement. Of course, that must be done proportionately and the Charity Commission has not always acted proportionately on a range of other issues, including, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the issue of the Plymouth Brethren. Had I been in the House at the time, I would certainly have supported that important campaign.
	Many involved in the third sector have expressed concern that the Bill gives the commission the benefit of the doubt, but bearing in mind the importance of raising public trust in our charities, particularly the big ones, it is essential that we have a strong regulator with the tools to act. The Bill provides that.
	I have some questions and thoughts for the Minister on the role of trustees. First, it is absolutely essential, as Kids Company showed—this seems a simple and obvious point—that a board of trustees contains the right range of expertise. That is stipulated within the guidance of the Charity Commission but, clearly, it does not always happen. In particular, that must include the right range of financial expertise. When charities reach a certain size, like our larger companies, they qualify to be in the FTSE 250. They are huge organisations and require individuals with genuine financial expertise and knowledge of financial controls so that they can scrutinise the organisation and hold it to account.

Fiona Bruce: I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but my concern is, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned, possible regulations for larger charities. My concern is how that is defined and that one might bring in the smaller charities. Does my hon. Friend not share my concern about the difficulty in attracting officers of charitable organisations, particularly to the role of treasurer, as my experience shows?

Robert Jenrick: I share that concern. We all know through the other organisations in which we are involved how difficult it can be to find good people, particularly younger people, as has been said, to act as trustees. Incidentally, the charitable sector is a lot more diverse than our corporate sector. About 40% of charitable trustees are women, and that figure is not the same in the corporate sector. It is important that we do not put people off from getting involved. It might be that the time has come when “one size fits all” does not work and that our largest charities, which uphold public trust and confidence in charitable giving more generally and which are very large—we are encouraging charities to merge and get larger—should be subject to far greater scrutiny and a different regime from the small ones that we all know in our constituencies and want to thrive.

Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps for the very small charities there needs to be some sort of Charity Commission kitemarked course that a would-be trustee can go on to ensure that they have the necessary understanding of the role required.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend comes on to a point that I wanted to make. By the Charity Commission’s own reckoning, knowledge of governance rules and best practice is quite limited among our trustees. I do not blame them—they are busy people who are doing this voluntarily and we want to encourage that—but knowledge is quite limited. The awareness and knowledge of some of the guidance—for instance, CC3, which is “The essential trustee” guide—are quite modest. Surveys that the Charity Commission has put out to trustees of larger and small charities suggest that basic functions of being a trustee are not widely known by our trustees.
	Anything that the Charity Commission can do to boost awareness without putting off our trustees is essential. I know that the Charity Commission takes that seriously, because I have spoken to it, but it needs to do something to boost that awareness and support trustees in a way that strikes the right balance between not deterring people and ensuring that they know what they are supposed to do. Some of the reports and surveys are quite scary when it comes to how few trustees understand their responsibilities, particularly as regards finance.

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous with his time. Does he agree that it is also important that we ensure that anyone who wants to do the best for their community or to support a good cause does not feel excluded from being a charity trustee merely because they do not have formal qualifications? It is important that the Charity Commission helps to build the skills they need, as I would not want to see trusteeship become a graduates-only zone.

Robert Jenrick: That is very important, but I do return to the theme of some of our biggest charities. They are major organisations dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds of not only the public’s money, through charitable donations, but the taxpayer’s money. I am nervous to dwell on the case of Kids Company, but its trustees had very little relevant expertise. One was a celebrity hairdresser—there is nothing wrong with that, but I do not expect that person necessarily to have expertise in running a major multinational business, as Kids Company had become. It is therefore essential that those organisations step up and have appropriate trustees. I would like this Bill and the Government to push our biggest charities to have those individuals.
	I know that charities are now required in their annual return to confirm whether or not they have reviewed their financial controls. Clearly, that important lesson has come out of recent scandals, and such a provision is essential. Anything we can do to beef it up, without deterring the little guys, is essential.
	Another issue is that, unlike as happens in companies, most trustees do not meet in mixed board meetings with their management, and so the interplay between the two is often limited. Those trustees who take their role most seriously and work hardest at it no doubt get to know the senior management of their organisation, but others do not and often rely, crucially, on the chief executive, who may be, as we have seen in other scandals, an overbearing founder. Such a person may be incredibly charismatic, powerful and knowledgeable about the organisation, but it is difficult to scrutinise them, stretch them and hold them to account. That is important, and our larger charities have started to have mixed board meetings involving executive and non-executive directors— I use the corporate setting there.
	I would like the Government to think about the role of overbearing founders, because it is an incredibly important issue. Anyone involved in the charitable sector sees examples where someone who may be a brilliant individual founds a charity and then it gets out of control, as they become extremely difficult to scrutinise and perhaps the time comes when they should step aside or hand over to somebody else. Perhaps it would be appropriate for these individuals to have term limits, as we might have for a chairman of a public company, where they have to go through a rigorous procedure at the end of a certain term in order to be reappointed.
	A number of our charities, even the largest ones, are riddled with conflicts of interest. We see trustees having friends and relatives employed in the organisation, and trustees sometimes getting benefits that are not appropriate. I do not think the Bill particularly deals with that issue, but it does a lot of damage and undermines confidence in the charitable sector.
	Lastly, I wonder whether the Minister really believes that the Charity Commission has the capacity to regulate the vast number of charities. We have thousands of charities in this country, some of which are extremely complex organisations, as we have seen. Does the Charity Commission have the resources to do that work? I suspect it does not, a view shared by many in the sector. Some of our most experienced chief executives believe the time has come for some form of beefing up of the Charity Commission through self-funding, whereby the big charities, which are the holders of public trust and confidence, might contribute some money towards ensuring that trust in the wider sector is maintained through a Charity Commission that has the funding required to see that happen.
	I know that the Minister wants to speak, so in conclusion, trustees are absolutely essential and those of our biggest charities are letting down the entire sector. Scandals such as what happened at Kids Company matter, because they are harming the small charities, which are the lifeblood of charitable giving. As a Member of Parliament, I have taken huge pleasure in getting to know and working with these charities in my constituency, and I know other Members feel the same. Those who hold those positions in the big organisations need to step up and behave as if they are non-executive directors of large and important organisations, which they are.

Louise Haigh: This is my first time at the Dispatch Box responding to a Bill, so may I say that it has been a pleasure listening to learned contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House? I would have liked a few more hon. Friends to be behind me today, but I assure the House that the fact there are not is not a signal of our disinterest but one of our wholehearted support of the Government’s objectives in the Bill.
	This has been an important and helpful debate, and I congratulate all Members who have participated in it and everyone who has been involved in getting the Bill to this place, particularly our colleagues in the other place. We have had a small number of contributions, but fortunately this debate has been defined by its quality, not its quantity.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who brings extensive experience in the sector, spoke about the difficulties in encouraging trustees to charities. She also discussed concerns about giving the Charity Commission the power to judge whether a potential trustee had committed misconduct and about powers to publish a warning notice, risking enormous damage to a potential trustee’s reputation.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) spoke about how the Bill cannot be viewed in a vacuum and should be viewed in the context that charities in our communities are increasingly being asked to do more with less, as the cuts, particularly those to our local authorities, bite further.
	The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) paid tribute to the many volunteers across her own community who respond to vital need, just as they do across all our communities. All of us will have fantastic charities that fill sadly much-needed demand in our constituencies, but I will not put your patience to the test by listing all the ones in my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) praised the charitable sector for developing the fundraising preference service, demonstrating the willingness of the sector to tackle issues highlighted by the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke passionately about her experience of volunteering, the impact of small charities in her constituency and her own private Member’s Bill on supporting the renowned, fantastic work done by the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), a fellow former corporate governance practitioner, spoke about how we must ensure that small charities do not pay the price for the mistakes of larger, misbehaving charities. He made reference to Kids Company, whose case has had ripple effects across the whole sector. I am glad that that charity has not dominated our debate today, because, as he said, it is an outlier, at best.
	Today's debate has provided a platform to debate the much-needed powers that will allow the Charity Commission to regulate the sector better, but first I wish to echo the feelings of Members on both sides of the House by saying that we know the special role charities play in our constituencies and in the country as a whole. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General rightly said, “the work charities do transcends politics and unites” this House. Britons donate billions of pounds per year, and very often it is those without a great deal donating what they can to the causes close to their heart or to those in need in the community around them.
	Charities are also the vehicle by which many of us can try to make a difference for the communities in which we live. Figures vary, but the latest estimate is that nearly three quarters of us of do some form of volunteering for charities at least once a year. To put it simply, the values and ethos of those nearly 1 million trustees who give their time to make our country a kinder and more interesting place are the best of Britain.
	We know, therefore, that charities have a great deal of good will and public support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) rightly said in opening for our side, they support our vulnerable and our sick and elderly, and give people the chance to change lives. With that in mind, it is vital that charities and their regulator have the appropriate powers to act in the extremely rare event that misconduct occurs.
	As we have heard, deliberate wrongdoing in charities is extremely rare, but it is important that the regulator has the power to take robust action where it does occur. We know that the measures in the Bill to prevent trustees who are not fit to hold the position from serving as trustees are widely supported by both the public and charities themselves—this is simply common sense.
	We therefore support Government moves to close the loopholes and strengthen the Charity Commission in this important aspect. As Members across the House will know, the Charity Commission already has a wide range of compliance and enabling powers, but there are underlying weaknesses, including a limit on the commission’s ability to prevent and/or tackle abuse in charities. The powers the Charity Commission did have were not powers that we would expect a modern regulator to hold—they did not go far enough—so we welcome the strengthening of its powers.
	In securing these new powers, we will enable the Charity Commission to regulate more effectively. We know that it is of the utmost importance that we are able to find the right balance between having good governance that gives people the confidence to support the sector and ensuring that charities have the freedom to be able to do what they do best—being brave in their determination to build a better society, innovating, responding to the challenge of today and tomorrow, and delivering effectively and with value for money.
	As we have heard, the vast majority of charities and trustees act in the interest of their beneficiaries, but the poor governance and unscrupulous fundraising activities of a few undermines confidence in the whole sector. We therefore welcome this Bill, and we very much welcome the new social investment powers and powers to disqualify trustees. But we would not be an effective Opposition if we did not point out areas of room for improvement.
	We are disappointed that the Government will seek to overrule the other place by removing clause 9, a vital amendment that protects charities from arbitrary rulings requiring them to dispose of their assets in contravention of their charitable purpose. I hope we can revisit that matter in Committee and that we can do so in the same cross-party manner of this debate.
	A number of hon. Members have made good points on fundraising, on the very important protection of minority views, which we in this House should hold so dear, and on ensuring the balance between regulation and enabling charities to do good in their communities. I know that the Minister will have been listening closely to this debate. I hope that we can work together on a cross-party basis to improve this Bill at Committee stage. With that, I can assure the House that we are happy to support this Bill on Second Reading.

Rob Wilson: I thank all hon. Members for their excellent contributions to this debate. Clearly, these issues are very important to them and their constituents. May I add my welcome and congratulations to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box? I am sure that it is the first of many.
	It is clear that the House has great respect and admiration for the good work currently being done by charities throughout the UK. I also know that hon. Members have much experience and expertise of charities in the voluntary sector, which was demonstrated during some of the speeches today.
	There is also a strong desire to protect the privileged position that charities hold in the eyes of the public, as was demonstrated in the latest world giving index, which found Britain to be the most generous nation in Europe. We also have a strong, diverse and growing charity sector. Over the period of the last Parliament, the number of registered charities in England and Wales increased by more than 2,000 to 165,000. Their combined income has grown by more than £10 billion, and is now just short of £70 billion a year.
	Before I address the remarks that have been made by hon. Members, let me take the time to echo a point that has been made throughout this debate. The vast majority of charities in this country do excellent work and are run by good, honest and generous people. They wish to help those most in need and make the world a better place. I particularly wish to pay tribute to charity trustees, without whose unpaid efforts there would be no charity sector. For their selfless passion and commitment, they have my respect and sincere thanks. However, their good work is threatened by a small minority who seek to abuse charitable status for their own ends. The Bill will help the independent regulator to take robust action against that small minority. By doing so, it will reinforce public trust and confidence and protect the reputation of charities as a whole.
	The powers in the Bill have broad support from the charitable sector and the public. The charity commissioner has been involved throughout the process of developing these proposals. The sector has also been subjected to public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, both of which helped inform and refine the proposed powers.
	Some have argued that the Bill would give the Charity Commission too much power, or that some of the powers are too broad. In response, I say that the Bill seeks to achieve a balance. The new commission powers need to be broad enough to make them useful. If they are too narrow they would be impractical and go unused or would leave loopholes to be exploited by the unscrupulous. Charities also need to know the circumstances in which the commission will use its powers.
	Although this Bill achieves the right balance, I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to a couple of key safeguards. The Charity Commission is subject to a general duty under section 16 of the Charities Act 2011. That means that the commission must be satisfied that the exercise of any of its powers would be in line with the principles of best regulatory practice, including that it is proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for drawing our attention to that section. It is a pity that it was not invoked when the whole interpretation of public benefit was being debated, and that the Charity Commission did not refer itself back to it then. My concern is that this Bill could be in force before there is a clear definition of non-violent extremism. The Government’s counter-extremism strategy says that this Bill would give the commission powers to disqualify trustees for wide reasons, including past conduct and a variety of other abuses, such as extremism. In the same strategy, there is also reference to non-violent extremism. Will the Minister address that point?

Rob Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution this afternoon and her question. She raises some extremely important issues, with which I intend to deal in full. As she has asked, let me just deal with the public benefit and religion issue first. Religious charities play a hugely important role in our public life. Over 25% of registered charities have a religious purpose and are often working in some of the most hard-to-reach communities. The advancement of religion is one of the oldest charitable purposes, and there is no question but that it is under threat. There are more than 25,000 registered religious charities, almost all of which have no difficulty in demonstrating their public benefit.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Plymouth Brethren in her speech. Its case was an exception, and I am pleased that it was resolved in a sensible way, even though it took too long. I will come back to some of the other issues that she raised later in my comments.
	All the proposed commission powers in the Bill have a right of appeal, in most cases to the Charity Tribunal, ensuring that there is independent judicial oversight of the exercise of the commission’s powers. There have also been some questions, notably from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), about the rehabilitation of offenders.
	The Government believe that individuals with serious convictions should not be able to hold the position of charity trustee and have control over charitable funds and fundraising activities until those convictions are spent or a waiver from disqualification is obtained from the commission. The waiver regime exists to enable disqualified individuals who wish to be a charity trustee to apply to the Charity Commission for their disqualification to be overturned.
	A waiver application would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the Charity Commission would take into account the nature and seriousness of the conduct that had resulted in the conviction and consequential disqualification.
	A decision by the Charity Commission not to grant a waiver could be appealed to the Charity Tribunal, which would consider the matter afresh. That strikes me as a fair and proportionate system that on the one hand protects charities from individuals who present a known risk, and on the other hand provides for the rehabilitation of offenders and a way back into charity trusteeship on a case-by-case basis.
	People have also raised concerns about the official warning power and the fact that there is no right of appeal to the Charity Tribunal. There is a right of appeal, which is judicial review. That is the same position as now, where the commission publishes its operational compliance case reports on non-inquiry cases that have attracted public interest and that highlight important lessons for charity trustees.
	The Bill provides for a period of time to allow representations to be made in relation to an official warning, which the commission would be obliged to consider. There is then the option of judicial review. We consider that proportionate.
	A right to appeal an official warning to the tribunal would be disproportionate and could tie the commission up in red tape, rendering the power impractical for its intended purpose. The last thing that we want to do is give the Charity Commission powers that it cannot use, and for which it could be criticised for failing to exercise several years hence. The Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny agreed that, with the appropriate safeguards in the provision, judicial review was the appropriate route for appeals.
	Let me turn now to fundraising. I was deeply disappointed to see the extent of poor practices by large charities in relation to their fundraising. That matter was widely exposed by the media earlier this year following the sad death of Olive Cooke. Since then, further damaging cases have come to light, and once again the reputation of charities has been put at risk by the actions of a small minority. Public trust and confidence in charities have not been this low since 2007, and charities now rank 12th in the list of most trusted institutions, below supermarkets and television and radio stations. Only 48% of people said they trusted charities.
	In response to the fundraising scandals, we acted swiftly to amend the Bill in the other place to reinforce charity trustees’ responsibilities and accountability for the charity’s fundraising. Clause 14 will encourage charities to exercise greater control and oversight of those who fundraise for their organisation. It will ensure that there are proper processes for dealing with vulnerable people and will generally safeguard the public. Large charities will make this commitment public through their annual reports so that anyone can hold them to account for how they interact with them.
	I asked Sir Stuart Etherington to conduct an independent review of how fundraising regulation could be improved to safeguard vulnerable people and better respect the public’s wishes about how and whether they are contacted. He was supported by a cross-party panel of peers. I have since accepted the review’s recommendations in full, and I am now encouraging the sector to move quickly and firmly to show that it gets the public’s anger and concern and is committed to making self-regulation work.
	I also expect the sector fully to back the new fundraising regulator, both financially and through compliance with its rulings. In the past few weeks, I have announced that Lord Michael Grade has been recruited as the interim chair of the new body and will oversee the set-up and initial phase of operations. I am confident that he is the right man to lead this important task and that the sector will unite behind him to address these urgent issues and restore public trust in fundraising.
	The new regulator will also host the fundraising preference service, a tool that will allow people to opt out of receiving fundraising requests and that will stop charities wasting resources on approaching those who do not wish to hear from them. A working group is currently being set up to establish how the service will work in practice. In addition to a simple reset button, there will no doubt be a few more nuanced options should people wish to opt into certain charities only. Crucially, it will provide everyone with a way to get off charity contact lists they no longer wish to be on.
	Charities need to demonstrate that fundraising and its self-regulation can work in the best interests of the public. They will have the chance to do so at a summit tomorrow, when the next steps for implementing better self-regulation will be announced. I hope that this will be a constructive and collaborative meeting where charities show their commitment to the new self-regulator and to meeting the public’s expectations. Should they fail to do so, I stand ready to step in to safeguard the public and their trust in charities.
	For that purpose, I will seek to add two reserve powers to the Bill: one to compel charities to sign up to the new regulator and a second to mandate the Charity Commission with regulation should the sector fail to rise to the challenge. I also welcome the commission’s revision of its guidance for charity trustees on fundraising, which it has published today. It reminds trustees of their duties and responsibilities in relation to fundraising, including the need to protect their charity’s reputation and that of the wider sector.
	The Bill also provides support to social investment. As many will have seen in the autumn statement, the Government have shown a strong commitment to social investment, having invested £80 million to grow social impact bonds in the UK. For charity investors, the power of social investment enables them to increase their mission impact and sustainability by making investments that provide a financial return as well as furthering the purpose of the charity. Although most charities can make social investments under the current law, it can be complex and costly to do so. The new social investment power for charities in clause 15 was recommended and drafted by the Law Commission to overcome that complexity and reduce the costs of investment for charities. It was widely supported on consultation.
	The UK is already recognised as a world leader in social investment, an area in which the Government have taken pioneering action. For example, we have set up Big Society Capital and stimulated the use of social impact bonds to deliver services to some of the most disadvantaged in society through initiatives such as social outcomes funds. With the power of social investment conferred on charities by the Bill, we take another step forward in building a sustainable social investment ecosystem.
	I now turn briefly to interventions and speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about the transparency of direct debit fundraisers. Professional fundraisers are already required to state how much they are paid for asking the public to donate, but I would be happy to discuss the matter further in Committee. I was delighted by the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who spoke for the SNP and may well have set a precedent under English votes for English law: he said that the SNP would not be taking part in any other stages of the Bill. I hope that that precedent will now stand.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for an uplifting speech and her comments about her inaugural volunteering day. I hope it sets a precedent for other MPs. It is great to see that that will now become an annual event, and I certainly wish it well. I also thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for supporting the fundraising preference service. For the sake of fundraising in the future, it is important that it works. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who told us the wonderful story about poppy knitting in one of her villages. It demonstrates the value of civil society and the contribution of charities. She is absolutely right that a small kindness can make a big difference.
	For several reasons, legislating for a maximum trustee term does not appeal. The evidence is that 50% of charities are carrying at least one trustee vacancy, and we must be mindful that the role is a voluntary one. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned the impact on small charities and made an important point about minimising the burden of regulation, as did the hon. Member for Clwyd South. We are keen to minimise the burden of regulation on small charities. For example, the new reporting requirement on fundraising in clause 14 will apply only to charities with incomes over £1 million, and the new fundraising self-regulator will need to consider exemptions for small charities from the fundraising preference service.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made a strong speech that clearly set out how big charities were causing great concern for some smaller charities. It is certainly our intention to try to protect them. The Opposition raised concerns about campaigning. To be clear, charities cannot engage in party-political campaigning, and where they undertake any other types of campaigning to support their charitable purposes, they must avoid adverse perceptions of their independence and political neutrality. In addition, they must not embark on campaigning to such an extent that it compromises their legal status as a charity. The Charity Commission provides clear guidance, in CC9, about what is permitted. It makes it clear that charity law recognises that non-party political campaigning can be a legitimate activity for charities and sets out the general principles.
	A concern was raised about whether the commission should be able to publish official warnings. Charities exist for public benefit and depend on public support, so there should be transparency and publication of official warnings when the regulator considers it necessary to intervene, unless there is a good reason not to publish them. There should always be an opportunity, though, to make representations about the factual accuracy of a statutory warning before it is published, and a process for representations is included in the Bill. Concerns were also raised about the scope of official warnings being too broad. We consider the scope to be right and clear. Under the Bill, a warning can be issued in respect of a breach of a statutory provision, breach of a commission order or direction or breach of a trust or duty.
	I will turn briefly to the concerns about extremism raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Extremism or the terrorist abuse of charities of any kind is very rare but must be addressed to protect public trust and confidence in charities. Although it may not represent most of the Charity Commission’s compliance work, it represents a serious risk to public trust and confidence. The reforms proposed in the Bill are not specifically focused on counter-terrorism or extremism—they would enable the commission better to tackle all types of abuse of charity—so the Bill does not seek to define extremism, nor should it. Charities and their work can be an important protection against extremism. We have no intention, as I said, of undermining freedom of religion or freedom of speech, and the Bill has been certified as compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Susan Elan Jones: rose—

Rob Wilson: I am going to finish there as I know that many Members want to get away from the Chamber today.
	This is Bill is about protecting charities and safeguarding their place in the public’s mind. It is about ensuring that charities will not fundraise in a manner that victimises the most vulnerable in our society, and it is about giving charities a new way to utilise their assets through social investment. Charities rely on the public’s trust and confidence. Abuse, where it happens, must be rooted out. These measures have broad support, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said earlier: 83% of the public and 92% of charities support new powers being introduced for the commission.
	Charities play a vital role in our communities and this Bill aims to bolster their position in the public’s trust and help them to continue the good works they have being doing for hundreds of years, continuing our country’s long and rich tradition of charity. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 7 January 2016.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Sarah Newton.)
	Question agreed to.

CHARITIES (PROTECTION AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT) BILL [LORDS] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided. —(Sarah Newton.)
	Question agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH: OUT-OF-AREA PLACEMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sarah Newton.)

Norman Lamb: It is a great pleasure to be able to raise a very important issue for debate, albeit three hours earlier than expected. It is good to see the Minister for Community and Social Care taking his seat.
	I want to raise an issue of profound importance. It is a practice which I think is intolerable but which carries on every week of the year and probably every day of the year: the shunting of people around the country, sometimes a long distance away from home, at a moment of mental health crisis. Typically, someone at a moment of acute crisis would be taken into hospital but there would be no bed available for them, so they would be taken away somewhere else in the country. There are numerous stories of people being taken hundreds of miles away from home on a regular basis.
	Such practice would never be tolerated in physical health services. Let us imagine, for example, someone who had had a stroke or with a heart condition being taken by ambulance and being told, “I’m sorry, there’s no room at the local hospital. We’re taking you to Cumbria from Norfolk.” It would be an outrage. It would be regarded as a scandal, so it does not happen—yet it happens every week of the year in mental health. I regard that as discrimination at the heart of our NHS and it is one of the very many examples of how people who suffer from acute mental ill health are disadvantaged by the system.
	Incidentally, I make no criticism of any individual Government; this practice always happened, but there has been a rise in the number of instances, which I will come to in a little while. In many ways, someone suffering from mental ill health does not get the same right of access to treatment at a moment of need as someone with a physical health problem. If any of us in the Chamber stopped and thought about it for a moment, we would conclude that we cannot begin to justify that, and that there must be a programme designed to achieve genuine equality of access to support at that moment of need.

Mark Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate about an area in which he has done so much work to date. The debate is about out-of-area mental health placements, but does he agree that there is also a huge problem in some of the vast health board areas—in our case in Wales—where rurality is an important factor? For instance, the closure of the Afallon mental health ward in Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth means that constituents of mine have to travel or be sent 50 miles away—not over the easiest terrain—to the Morlais ward in Carmarthen. There is a huge problem across the country, but there is a great problem in those great geographic areas too. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to comment on the details of the Welsh national health service, but I am sure the problem is replicated in English health areas.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. He makes an extremely important point. I will come on to address it in more detail later.
	There is, for example, evidence of an increased risk of suicide if people are treated a long way away from home and family and friends who struggle to visit them. The idea of care close to home is incredibly important in mental health. We should, as far as possible, seek to care for people at home, not take them into hospital unless that is unavoidable. There are times when that is necessary, and as far as possible there should be a place close to home.

Mark Williams: I know that what I am about to ask is not a central point of my right hon. Friend’s debate, but does he agree that one of the unacceptable outcomes has been the increased use of the police and police cells for holding people overnight? That has been the situation in my constituency.

Norman Lamb: That is a shocking practice. I applaud my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on it in his area. The idea of putting someone who is suffering an acute mental illness into a police cell, which is defined in the legislation, unbelievably, as “a place of safety”, is bizarre and ought not to be tolerated. I am pleased that the Government have indicated an intention to legislate, in effect to eradicate the problem completely for under-18s and to make it an exception for adults. We managed to reduce the numbers in England by 50% in the past two years, which was considerable progress, but we need to go much further and bring an end to an unacceptable practice.
	It is interesting that where local passion and drive exist, amazing things are possible. In our capital city, London, last year around 20 people in total ended up in a police cell, whereas in Sussex the number was over 400. That demonstrates that with real drive from both police and mental health services, practices can be changed and people’s lives can be made better. My hon. Friend is right to persist with the issue in Wales, just as I have tried to do in England.

Kevin Foster: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on the work that he has done to bring the issue to the fore. A police cell should be for someone charged with a crime, not for someone who is unwell. Does he agree that to some extent the problem could be overcome with better co-ordination? I had a case in my constituency where a local treatment unit was full so a person was placed in Maidenhead. We then discovered that there was someone from Maidenhead in the local treatment unit in Torbay and arranged a swap.

Norman Lamb: Such a story makes one weep and leaves one feeling that there is a degree of incompetence somewhere. I will come to that point. Much of what I want to see happen can be done by better organisation, rather than by providing more money. I strongly believe that we need more investment in mental health services, but a lot can be done just by organising things much better.

Tom Brake: Will my right hon. Friend commend the work that South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust has done with a number of local authorities in the area, including mine? The police work with a nurse, to ensure that if the police are dispatched somewhere where a person has a mental health problem, there is someone who is able to assess them immediately and ensure that they go to a place of safety, as opposed to going to a police cell.

Norman Lamb: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is talking about something called street triage—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—which we introduced in many areas of the country over the past two to three years with a bit of pump-priming grant. Some pioneering areas, such as Leicestershire, just went ahead and introduced it before the national pilots started. The evidence is dramatic. Where we have that collaboration between the police and mental health services, with a nurse embedded in the police team, we achieve amazing results. We completely reduce the number of people being taken in under that legislation, because the nurse can find alternative solutions or provide care at home. Where it is necessary to take somebody to a place of safety, the numbers having to go into police cells falls dramatically. That innovative work was very much part of the crisis care concordat that I pioneered when a Minister, the aim of which was for the first time ever to set standards in mental health crisis care.

Mark Williams: It would be wrong not to acknowledge in my area the Dyfed-Powys police and how the health board has embarked on such an initiative. My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that areas such as mine face the challenge of rurality and making those services available where they are needed. There is still a fear that all too often the need is not met.

Norman Lamb: I agree. My own county of Norfolk, with its widely dispersed rural communities, suffers from the same challenges. Sometimes having a nurse in a car with a couple of police officers does not work in a big rural area. However, we can do other things, like having a nurse embedded in the police operations room so that whenever an issue arises they can speak immediately be telephone or, if necessary, get a resource to the scene. Depending on the geography, there are ways of dealing with those challenges. We need to be much smarter in doing that. I applaud the innovation across the country.
	Our whole approach in the crisis care concordat was rather different from the traditional Government approach, which is sort of to impose a straitjacket. The crisis care concordat said, “These are the principles. You come up with your plan for implementing them, working with the police, mental health services and the local authority, in a way that works for your locality.” That generated the most amazing degree of innovation across the country, and real progress has been made. Although I initiated it, I have enormous admiration for the people on the ground who got on and did it. It was inspiring.

Tom Brake: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Norman Lamb: I will give way, but then I really ought to make some progress.

Tom Brake: I want to return to the point my right hon. Friend started with. We had an issue in Sutton where the mental health facility is based on what had been the Sutton hospital site—it was shut down mainly because Legionnaires’ bacteria were discovered. Patients now have to travel to Springfield hospital. As we see more people being treated at home, which is what we want, and therefore fewer people in acute crisis, how does he deal with the fact that, because hopefully fewer people will need to be treated in specialist centres, there is likely to be a smaller number of them?

Norman Lamb: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, it means that we need to think afresh and innovate. The third sector has been very good at coming up with concepts such as crisis houses, where at quite low cost a facility can be provided in a locality where someone can go at a moment of crisis. They therefore might not need a formal hospital admission, and it might be a much more therapeutic place to be as they get through their crisis. I recently visited the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, which, in addition to crisis houses, has host families that someone can go to be with, if that is appropriate, for a week or however long is necessary. That might be exactly what is needed, rather than the cold, clinical environment of a hospital ward. That sort of innovation is what we need in order to ensure that we have services that meet patients’ needs.
	I want to share with the House the testimony of a constituent who has experienced an out-of-area placement. It has been anonymised, for obvious reasons, but it is very powerful none the less. It is quite shocking. It reads as follows:
	“I was admitted to accident and emergency at Norfolk and Norwich Hospital on a Wednesday afternoon, following a suicide attempt. I regained consciousness the following day, having been transferred to the Acute Medical Unit, and it was quickly decided that I needed to be admitted to a mental health ward.
	I had previously been on Glaven Ward at Hellesdon.”
	That is the mental health hospital in Norwich. My constituents continues:
	“At this point I was very woozy, suffering from a dangerously low mood, and angry that my suicide attempt had failed. I was at grave risk of making another attempt on my life. Throughout the Thursday and Friday efforts were made to find a mental health bed.”
	That is what happens in the system.
	“My parents were frantically trying to find out what was happening, as they were desperate for me to be looked after locally. For a time we were told that I would be going back to Glaven Ward at Hellesdon, but the news kept changing between there and a unit in London.”
	London is between 120 and 130 miles away from Norwich, and further away from my constituent’s home.
	“I was expecting to go to Hellesdon on Friday morning, but we were then told later that day that I would be going to south London. During the Friday, I twice walked off the ward and out of the hospital, without my absence being noticed, and went down to the Watton Road”—
	which is near the hospital—
	“with the intention of walking in front of a bus or a lorry. The main reason I didn’t go through with it was that I did not want the vehicle to swerve into an oncoming car and cause death or injury to someone else.
	Meanwhile, my parents resorted to contacting the crisis team, as they could not get any information from the bed team. A member of the crisis team took responsibility for finding out what was happening and he was able to let me and my parents know that I would be transported to south London later that Friday evening.
	Finally, after more uncertainty”—
	this is really shocking—
	“two men arrived to take me to London. At 10 pm, feeling suicidal, frightened and confused, I got into the back of a private ambulance (which was no more than a pretty austere minibus) and was driven away from the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. Throughout the three-hour drive, I was spoken to just once by one of the two men, and felt more like a prisoner being transported than a patient.”
	That is the way our NHS deals with someone who is acutely ill. It is really shocking. It ought not to be accepted. My constituent went on:
	“At 1 am, by now completely disorientated, I arrived at the front door of the mental health unit in south London. After lots of knocking at the door, someone answered, and I was handed over with a quick ‘good luck’. I was booked in and shown to my room. I felt isolated and scared. My room was nice, but the unit felt like a prison. The internal doors were like cell doors, and there was a tiny outdoor area, fringed by a high fence with spikes on the top. It was a mixed ward, both in terms of sex and in terms of illness: people with depression and anxiety were alongside those with psychosis, personality disorders and acute problems.”
	It is really shocking that a whole load of people with completely different conditions were thrown together like that. It is probably the least therapeutic environment imaginable. That is about containing people, not caring for them, and it ought to be a thing of the past.

Henry Bellingham: I had a similar case in King’s Lynn, although I cannot go into it because it ended in tragedy, with the individual committing suicide, having previously made an attempt. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely essential in such cases that there is proper monitoring and supervision of the individual, whose life is obviously at risk during such an episode?

Norman Lamb: It is absolutely critical that that happens —not only monitoring but proper treatment. As I will go on to describe, that is not what happened in this case.
	The constituent continues:
	“The following morning, I had a meeting with my named nurse. Extraordinarily, it was the only real conversation I had with him until I was discharged back to Norfolk 10 days later.”
	That is not therapeutic care—it is neglect. I have asked whether there are any contractual requirements on the private provider who provided that “care” and received a substantial sum of money for it. I have been told that it was understood that there would be therapeutic care but no apparent requirement that that should be undertaken in return for a substantial amount of public money being spent on his care. He goes on:
	“The care was unacceptable. It felt as though I was being kept in a holding facility, and my mental health deteriorated, with my suicidal thoughts increasing. In stark contrast to Glaven at Hellesdon, the staff were holed up in an office with a heavy steel door that you couldn’t see into. I was being checked up on every 15 minutes, as I was a suicide risk.
	But I rarely had a conversation with a member of staff. My parents came down from Norfolk twice to see me, and were horrified by what they encountered—both the level of care and my deterioration. They were constantly contacting Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust to try to get me moved back to Hellesdon. The stress made them both ill.”
	That shows the impact there is on families as well. He continues:
	“Thankfully their persistence paid off, and after 10 days, I was told that I was going to be recalled. I had a brief period of uncertainty, as I didn’t know whether I would be going to Hellesdon, King’s Lynn or Great Yarmouth.
	Eventually, I was told it would be Glaven at Hellesdon, and I got into a taxi with a member of staff and was driven from south London to Glaven Ward.
	When I arrived there, I cried, mainly through relief. I was greeted with compassion and understanding by the staff, and—after 10 wasted and expensive days—my recovery finally began.”
	That experience, sadly, is repeated day in, day out across the NHS. It is a scandal that it continues. One of the things I will put to the Minister when I conclude is that I want his commitment to end this practice, because it is intolerable that it continues in this day and age.
	I mentioned cost. An analysis has been done by the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness, which, having looked at 29 providers, says that the cost of out-of-area placements went up from £51.4 million to £65.2 million in 2014-15. That is an extraordinary amount of money to spend on an unacceptable practice, demonstrating that with smarter use of the resources available it should be possible to bring that practice an end.
	The national confidential inquiry also found that being treated out of area increases someone’s risk of suicide. The pattern is most apparent in England, where suicides by in-patients and patients recently discharged from hospital have fallen, although suicides following discharge from an out-of-area ward have increased. The annual number of suicides after discharge from a non-local unit has increased from 68 in 2003-07 to 109 in 2008-12. Experts have warned that mental health patients are at the highest risk of taking their own lives in the first two weeks after being discharged from hospital, and these figures confirm that. When we are talking about a risk of people actually losing their lives, surely we have to see the absolute importance of bringing this practice to an end.
	I want to refer to a recent report by the Independent Mental Health Services Alliance called “Breaking Down Barriers: Improving patient access and outcomes in mental health”. It says that we must prioritise something that I have argued for consistently—the introduction of comprehensive waiting time standards in mental health so that someone with a mental health problem has exactly the same right of access to treatment as anyone else. It also says that people who end up in an out-of-area placement, sometimes a long way from home, get “lost in the system”; they are almost forgotten about. They are away from the commissioners and the normal provider, and they can sometimes languish in these centres for far too long. That, again, is completely intolerable.
	The report also refers to the problem of delayed discharge. It says:
	“We have found that between 2013/14 and 2014/15, the average number of days of delayed discharge per month for trusts providing mental health services increased by 22.2 per cent. This indicates that delayed discharges are having an increased impact on patients’ access to appropriate care.”
	In other words, if beds are clogged up by people who are ready to leave and go home or to go to another facility, but they cannot because nothing else is arranged for them, then someone else at a moment of crisis cannot get access to a bed and is shunted off, sometimes to a place a long way from home. That is a completely unacceptable practice.
	The report refers to children and young people’s mental health services. The Minister will be particularly aware of the acute concern about children being shunted off, often to places hundreds of miles away from home—an intolerable practice. I know that that has happened in the south-west, where there has been a particular shortage of beds for children. A team within NHS England undertook an inquiry that came up with recommendations for eradicating that problem. The taskforce’s report, “Future In Mind”, which we published shortly before the general election, pointed to the absolute need to care for people close to home and to have better crisis support to avoid admissions where possible. Yet the practice continues, and it must be a priority for the Minister to bring it to an end.
	One of the things that “Future In Mind” sought to address is the perverse incentive that exists in the system with the awful tiering of care within children’s mental health services. If a child is put into tier 4 from tier 3 because it is judged that they need more acute in-patient care, then the financial responsibility for their care is transferred to NHS England. There is therefore an incentive for local commissioners to push them into the top tier, which is precisely the opposite of what ought to be happening. We ought to be focusing our incentives on preventing deterioration of health, not shunting people into the most acute care, too often away from home. Imagine what it must be like for the parents of, say, a 14-year-old child who is taken to a unit 100 miles or 200 miles away from home. It is really shocking, and I hope that the Government will feel the need to commit to eradicating that practice as quickly as possible.
	When the issue came to my attention as a Minister, I asked my officials to provide me with data to find out what was happening around the country. I was confronted by freedom of information requests by campaigning organisations and by news reports of shocking things that were happening in the system, but I had no information on which to base my own judgment. I was told by the officials that they did not collect data on the issue. The Government are operating in a complete fog, and we have to rely on campaigning organisations to make inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	Incidentally, I urge the Minister to use what powers of persuasion he has to argue against undermining the Freedom of Information Act. At the moment, a process is under way that runs the risk of doing precisely that. It seems to me that freedom of information is a really important way of holding the Government to account.
	I was faced with having no information or data on that practice, so we initiated a process to collect such data. We have now collected those data. They are still in experimental form, but they are better than nothing. The data show that there is extraordinary variation around the country. That brings me back to the point that this is about not just extra money, but good practice. It is about learning from areas of best practice. We now discover that many mental health trusts have no out-of-area placements, but they are funded in broadly the same way as those in areas that have a persistent and unacceptable problem.
	There is a three-month delay before the data are published, so the latest data are those from the end of August, but 2,198 people were in out-of-area placements at that time. We are not entirely clear about whether the drift upwards is caused by the collection of more data or by a worsening of the problem. I do not want to draw the wrong conclusion from the numbers, but they certainly do not appear to be going down.
	I want to raise with the Minister the issue that the data are incomplete because some private providers refuse to return data. Under their contractual dealings with the NHS, they are obliged to return those data. When I was a Minister, I raised that matter with officials and with the information centre. Surely, it is completely unacceptable. I have no difficulty with a good private provider providing a good service, but they must absolutely play by the same rules as everybody else.

Tom Brake: To return to my right hon. Friend’s earlier point about freedom of information—in fact, there is a case for extending it—is it not right to ensure that private companies doing public work are covered by FOI in exactly the same way? That applies to the health sector, as well as to many other sectors.

Norman Lamb: I agree. There should be a level playing field, which there is not at present. We now have the unacceptable situation that data are incomplete because some private providers refuse to play ball. That leaves one suspicious, because if they do not provide data about how many people are held, it is impossible to hold the system to account or, indeed, to hold such private providers to account. The Minister must find a way to hold those providers to account and to ensure that they return the data they are obliged to provide.
	A horrific number of people are still sent a considerable distance away from home. In August, 501 people were sent more than 50 km away from home. Surely that practice is intolerable, given what I have said about the increased risk of suicide, the fact that it does not provide therapeutic care and that it can lead to someone being confined for 10 days at enormous cost to the public purse. It seems to me that this is the most outrageous misuse of public money.
	There are areas where that problem is persistently at its greatest. In August, the Devon Partnership NHS Trust had 45 people in out-of-area placements. The caveat is that we do not know precisely where responsibility lies, and whether this is a commissioning or a provider issue. However, that is the local provider, and one would normally expect such people to be in a bed provided by the local provider. The figure of 45 people means that significantly more than one person a day is shunted more than 50 km away from home, which is outrageous.

Henry Bellingham: Has any analysis been done of whether the families have been contacted in such cases? It is incredibly important that one strand of support for these patients is through their families. What percentage of cases involve families being informed, having given permission for the patient to be moved?

Norman Lamb: We do not have that information—the data are very basic—but that matter is crucial. I imagine that communications often fall down when urgent referrals to another location take place.
	I would raise another issue about families. If they have to visit a loved one 50 km or 100 km from home, just imagine the cost involved. Members in the Chamber— any of us could be in this situation—can afford to visit a loved one, but many people cannot do so. That is another reason why the situation is intolerable.

Kevin Foster: It is very interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s statistics on my own area of Devon. It is important to get to grips with the issue for the reasons he has mentioned. He raised the point about communications in the example of the expensive round trip from Devon to Maidenhead. In many cases, families may know where their loved one will go, but the reality is they are presented with a choice: “Your loved one needs treatment—this is where it’s going to be. There is not much you can do, other than trying to mitigate all the impacts in the best way you can.”

Norman Lamb: Such a situation leaves the family feeling desperate, guilty that they can do nothing to help their child or loved one, and powerless to do anything. That is similar to the case of Josh Wills, a little boy with autism, who lives in Cornwall. He was placed in a specialist unit in Birmingham, so we can imagine the journey his parents had to make every week. He was there for more than three years, and when I was the Minister, I had to intervene personally to get the commissioners to London to try to sort out the case. Josh is now back in Cornwall, but it took far too long for that to happen. Such cases must put families under intolerable pressure and strain.
	I should mention the areas where the problem is at its worst. In the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, there were 30 cases in August. Again, that is one a day. In the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust the figure was 30, in West London Mental Health NHS Trust it was 25 and in Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust it was 25. Again, there is the caveat that we do not know where the responsibility lies, but we should all accept that the practice is not acceptable and has to be brought to an end.
	The data focus on non-specialist beds. There will be cases, just as with physical health problems, where a patient needs specialist input and where a referral to a specialist hospital, such as Papworth in the case of a heart condition, is appropriate. However, non-specialist beds and services should surely be provided closer to home. So we got these data together and they now allow us to hold the system to account. As well as establishing the dataset, we got Monitor and the Trust Development Authority to do, to use the jargon, deep dives into a number of organisations, both good organisations and those with a bad record of out-of-area placements, to get a better understanding of what was going on. When they reported back to me, their conclusion was that this problem ought to be solvable.
	That is the important point for the Minister. Solving this problem is not something that we would all love to do, but that is not possible. It is achievable, but it requires drive, ambition and determination to see it through. If I may, as an ex-Minister, I will offer a bit of advice to the incumbent. It is no good saying that we need to make incremental progress to reduce the numbers. We need to establish the principle that this practice is not acceptable. Someone in a mental health crisis who does not require specialist care should not be sent away from home, full stop. This is not a difficult issue. It should become what in the NHS is known as a “never event”—it should never happen. If we know that there is a link between this practice and an increased risk of suicide, how can we tolerate it?
	The Minister has to set the objective of ending this practice. I understand that it will take time. Back in March, I wanted to see it end by the end of this calendar year. I recognise that that is now not achievable, but I set the objective of ending it within 12 months. That is achievable, provided that there is drive, ambition and purpose to make it happen.
	A related issue is that of money. I have made it clear that I totally sign up to the importance of doing things differently and making better use of resources to achieve good results for people. However, investment is needed in mental health. In the negotiations in the run-up to the March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) secured £1.25 billion of extra investment in children and young people’s mental health services for the five-year period of this Parliament. In year 1, the amount that ought to have arrived on an equitable division of that £1.25 billion was £250 million. The amount that was made available was £143 million, which means there is a shortfall.
	We were told that that was because we were part way through the year, we had had the general election and we needed to make sure that the money was spent effectively. I sort of accepted that explanation, but I have since heard from reliable sources that there was a land grab going on and that money was taken away from children and young people’s mental health services to prop up the finances of acute hospitals, for example. I urge the Government to make good the shortfall in future years.
	On 13 October, the Minister helpfully reconfirmed that the full £1.25 billion would be spent in this Parliament. I call on him to repeat that commitment today. It is critical that the extra investment that was confirmed in the Budget in March is stuck to. It is a matter of good faith by the Government and I would like to hear that confirmation. I also think, incidentally, that we should make good the shortfall in year 2 because, just as with the rest of the NHS, frontloading the money to invest in change is the best way to use the resources that are available.
	I will move towards the end of my contribution, which has been rather elongated owing to the additional time that is available. I will end by asking specific questions of the Minister. I would be grateful if he addressed each of them directly this afternoon. If he is unable answer any of those questions directly, I would be grateful if he wrote to me as soon as possible and responded to them directly.
	First is the issue of principle. Does the Minister accept that this practice is intolerable? I am not talking about specialist beds; I am talking about non-specialist beds where someone at a moment of mental health crisis, or in other circumstances, is shunted around the country—a practice that would never be tolerated in physical health. Secondly, will he commit to ending that practice completely within 12 months, and effectively to make it a “never event”? Thirdly, will he personally drive that change, because I know from experience that that is necessary? He needs to be on the case constantly to ensure that the system responds to that moral imperative.
	Fourthly, will he ensure that all providers provide the data that their contracts oblige them to provide to the information centre? Anything short of that is completely unacceptable. The data are still in experimental form, and information centre notes state that they provide a “reference point” for a more accurate measurement in the future. There must therefore be an evolution to get to a point where data around the country are completely accurate, so that providers and commissioners can be held to account. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the experimental data are turned into final-form data that we can all rely on?
	Finally, will the Minister reconfirm his total and absolute commitment to ensuring that £1.25 billion of additional investment is spent on children and young people’s mental health services this Parliament? Will he commit to sticking with the vision that we published in October last year and to introduce comprehensive maximum waiting time standards? I did that work—which led to the publication of that document—in collaboration with the Secretary of State, and he was incredibly helpful in supporting me to get that published. The vision was clear, and it recognised that until we have comprehensive waiting time standards for mental health, just as exist for physical health, we will not get equality of access to treatment. An essential principle in a publicly funded service is that all people must have the same right to receive evidence-based treatment on a timely basis. As I have said, will the Minister write to confirm any specific point that he feels unable to deal with this afternoon?

Alistair Burt: We have been fortunate in having rather longer than we normally get for an Adjournment debate, and that has allowed the right hon. Gentleman to speak at greater length about some of the issues affecting the historical imbalance between mental and physical health, with particular emphasis on out-of-area mental health placements. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I am delighted to respond to it.
	I thank other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), who chairs the all-party group on mental health, has dropped in as part of his responsibilities in the House, which I welcome. I also welcome the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for her attendance.
	Before I come on to respond in more detail, let me make one or two general remarks. The right hon. Gentleman referred right at the beginning to the long-standing nature of some of these problems. These issues have not arisen in the past six months. They have been here—Government in, Government out—for some time. The coalition Government made huge strides in recognising the importance of mental health and drove forward some of the changes that needed to be made. It is certainly clear that part of my responsibilities now is to pick up on that and to build on it.
	If I may just make reference to the right hon. Gentleman for a moment, I think his key achievements include: the expansion of psychological therapies; the reduction in the use of police cells for people experiencing a mental health crisis; introducing the first access and waiting time standards; and piloting the sense that there has to be parity of esteem. Those achievements absolutely underpinned what I came in to find in the Department. The intractable nature—or at least intractable up to now—of some of the problems has been graphically illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman’s passionate expression today of some of the things he was not able to do during his time as Minister. They set the baseline for what I hope to do. He asked for a personal commitment to drive forward the changes. Absolutely. The bar has been set quite high.
	As the right hon. Gentleman and others have mentioned, what has puzzled me most since being in office is the variability of practice. How is it that in two areas side by side with exactly the same resources there will be one that has a set of procedures in place to ensure that good treatment is provided, while in another that is not the case? It is not always about resources, but management and leadership. I have been puzzled by why there is so much variability.
	There is another puzzle that is very pertinent to what we are talking about today and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred: the perverse incentives in the system. Treatment costs are split between local authorities and the NHS. They seem to be based not on what is in the best interests of the patient, but on what suits the budget best. Now, none of us are naive. We all know this goes on. However, his description of the letter from his constituent, which I know about because I responded to him about it this week, illustrates the impact on the individual of decisions that people make for perverse incentive reasons—perhaps relating to budget, if that was one of the reasons. I am interested, as he is, in why there is such variability between areas. Some areas seem to have very few out-of-area places and others do not.
	I hope to be able to deal with all the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, but before I do I want to put a few points on the record. The Government’s commitment is clear. We have given the NHS more money than ever before for mental health, with an increase to £11.7 billion last year. We have made it clear that local NHS services must follow our lead by increasing the amount they spend on mental health and making sure beds are always available. In the spending review and autumn statement, we announced an additional £600 million for mental health over the next five years to increase psychological therapies, crisis care and perinatal mental health. This reaffirms our commitment to achieving parity of esteem for mental and physical health.
	In perinatal mental health services, for example, I want to ensure that women are able to access the right care at the right time, and close to home. I know that provision of specialist perinatal mental health services varies across the country. Some women have access to excellent care and support, while there are serious gaps in provision in other areas. Women suffering the most severe and complex perinatal mental illnesses need access to specialist in-patient mother and baby units, and good quality community support care in the area where they live. There are currently 15 units in England—I understand that the number fell by a couple from between 2010 and 2015—but NICE estimates there is a UK shortfall of between 60 to 80 mother and baby unit beds. That is why we announced in the March Budget that the
	Government would invest an additional £75 million over the next five years, £15 million a year, to support women suffering from mental ill health in the perinatal period. NHS England is leading a work programme to ensure that this extra money is spent in the right way at the right time and in the right places. The right hon. Gentleman’s work has made that base. I give him as much assurance as I can that in the areas where he set the work in progress, that work is going to continue; in places where the work is going slowly, it will be challenged; and in places where he was not able to make the progress he wanted to make, I set myself the challenge to do just that. I do not have to worry an awful lot about freedom of information requests because I will get the questions from him and from a number of hon. Friends and colleagues who have grasped how important this issue is.
	Let me return to the source of the debate. I greatly appreciate the work that the right hon. Gentleman put in train earlier in the year with NHS England and mental health provider organisations to understand the pressures that lead to people being sent away from home for treatment that should be available locally. This has helped to provide a picture of the scale of the problem and to raise its profile. We know that the principle should always be for care close to home in the least restrictive setting. It is not acceptable for people to be travelling for miles when they are acutely unwell.
	I know about the case that the right hon. Gentleman raised because I dealt with it this week, and I agree with him that some of the attitudes expressed by some of those responsible for people’s care are just not good enough. It cannot be acceptable and it cannot have been acceptable to listen too little to those who are in care or who are being cared for when they have made complaints about treatment. I am well aware of the problem—I am occasionally chased on Twitter about it—and I say to one or two of the groups that I am looking carefully at how to deal with it better. Sometimes people feel that they have not been listened to, and I suspect that the sort of example revealed in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s letter might be rather more common than we think. Accordingly, I want to ensure that the inspection and regulation regime really picks things up. I know that there will sometimes be differences in opinion and that things will need to be clarified, but I do worry about the attitudes sometimes expressed, and I want to make sure that the Department has really got hold of ensuring that those sort of complaints are picked up and, whenever possible, really burrowed into to find out what might have gone on.

Norman Lamb: I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance. One of the issues highlighted in my constituent’s case was the fact that he was transported very late at night, arriving at about 1 am, and there was another person from Norfolk in the same unit that same week who was collected at 1 am from the unit to be brought back to Norfolk. This treats people like chattel; it does not treat them as human beings. Is the Minister prepared to highlight to the Care Quality Commission that it should investigate and explore that particular aspect—the transporting of people—because having to travel in a minibus with someone who does not talk to them for three hours, and arriving very late at night is simply outrageous?

Alistair Burt: Of course it is, and I share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration. I write a lot of letters to colleagues who express concerns and I have to signpost them to the other organisations in the health sector that have responsibility for taking particular decisions. That is quite right, because local decisions ought to be local. Clinical commissioning groups or trusts need to be responsible and accountable for what they are doing. However, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is occasionally frustrating when I feel that I cannot pick up the phone and make my own inquiry. We cannot run a system in which Ministers arbitrarily pick up cases because they are the ones we know about; there has to be a structured system. When particular things come to light, I am looking at how to use my position and the authority of the Department to make sure that something has been properly gone into—even if it is somebody else’s statutory responsibility. We in this House who remain accountable for things should be able to make sure that those statutory groups, including the CCGs, have really got a grip. I am keen to pursue that.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that there is something fundamentally unsatisfactory—and, indeed, wrong—about moving someone late at night unless it is absolutely necessary for medical and clinical reasons?

Alistair Burt: Yes. It seems very puzzling that that should be a regular practice, if it is. That should not be the case. Of course there are all sorts of different pressures on the system, and it would probably not be appropriate to say that it should never happen, but, in principle, people who are in a state of anxiety should be moved with the maximum care, at the time that is of greatest benefit to them and their health needs.
	As I was saying, it is not acceptable for people to be travelling for miles when they are acutely unwell. It is also not acceptable for staff to be spending time phoning around to find beds for their patients.
	Let me return briefly to the impact of social media. A couple of weeks ago, I read in a tweet from a frustrated doctor—I hope he will pick up on today’s debate—that on that particular day no bed had been available for a woman anywhere in England. Along with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who had raised the matter with me, I made inquiries and found that that was not technically true; beds were available. The response from the doctor was, “You may be technically correct, Minister, but it is very difficult to find them”, and the results of my inquiries suggest that that is true. We need to establish a better system of identifying beds that may be available, because that too is part of the problem. People should not be spending time looking for beds. I have an idea about that, which I shall mention later in my speech.
	I had to tell the clinician that I did not think that, technically, what he had said was true. However, I recognise that for those who are in the business of finding beds for people, it should not be as difficult as it appears to be, and I want to establish what we can do to help.
	We know that the need to place people out of area, away from home, family, friends and networks, is a “warning sign” of a mental health system that is under pressure, and we know that no one wants to spend scarce resources on sending people out of area. However, we cannot look at out-of-area treatments in isolation, because they are part of the mental health acute care pathway as a whole. I welcome the interim report of Nigel Crisp’s commission, which was set up to review the provision of acute in-patient psychiatric care for adults, and I look forward to reading his final report and recommendations early in the new year.
	Lord Crisp’s interim report made it clear that—as I am sure the right hon. Member for North Norfolk knows—the situation is more complex than a shortage of beds. We know that there has been a long-term reduction in the number of psychiatric beds in England, but the report suggests that in many areas there would be enough beds if improvements were made to other parts of the system and integrated, community-based services were commissioned. That very point has been made this afternoon in relation to the variability of practice. The report also made it clear that the so-called bed crisis, or admissions crisis, is a problem of discharges and alternatives to admission, and can be dealt with only through changes in services and in the management of the whole system.
	As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that can be done, as has been demonstrated in a number of local areas. Sheffield, for example, has almost entirely eliminated adult acute out-of-area treatments, and has reduced average bed occupancy to 75% by redesigning the local system, That has included investing in intensive community treatment, and working in partnership with housing. In the right hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has begun to reduce its historical problem of out-of-area treatments through a combination of investing in more acute adult beds and working with commissioners to develop community and crisis resolution services.
	I understand that the independent Mental Health Taskforce has spent some time discussing these issues. I hope that its report, which will be published in the new year, will be an important driver for improving mental health services over the next five years, and will address many of the key issues raised in Lord Crisp’s interim report.

Norman Lamb: Can the Minister confirm the likely publication date of the taskforce’s report? I think he said it would be in the new year, but can he give me his best estimate of a specific date? Also, I would like to acknowledge that the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has made real progress. The number of people being sent out of area has come down significantly, and that needs to be recognised.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comment about his trust. My understanding is that the taskforce’s report will come through very shortly. I am not sure whether it will be done this month or by the start of next month, but it is imminent.
	I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks about the Secretary of State for Health. The Secretary of State has already agreed an action plan to tackle out-of-area treatments for adult acute in-patient care. Where out-of-area treatments are a problem, local areas will be asked to put in place clear action plans demonstrating how they can reduce out-of-area treatments, in the best interests of patients, during the course of 2016-17. Now I come to one of the right hon. Gentleman’s challenges.
	Building on this, I intend to go further and put in place a national ambition to address out-of-area treatments. I will do this in consideration of the Crisp commission and the taskforce report, and I will communicate details of this ambition by the end of March 2016—that is, by the start of the next financial year.
	I want to wait and see what Lord Crisp and the Mental Health Taskforce say and then consider exactly what the ambition should be. Should it be an ambition for complete elimination? Should it provide a much tighter variation? I want to see those reports before I set the ambition, but I will set it, and the targets, and come back to the right hon. Gentleman and the House before the end of March next year to communicate those decisions. I hope that helps.
	I also commend the right hon. Gentleman for recognising the need to improve mental health crisis care and for launching the mental health crisis care concordat, which we have discussed today. This debate has given us an opportunity to talk about variation in practice, the quality of street triage and the fact that we can do different things in different areas. I saw the work being done in Bradford, for example, where the mental health practitioner is located in the control room, as opposed to being on the street. The galvanising of local groups to work together by giving them the responsibility of doing the job has been absolutely vital. The way in which we are reducing the number of people detained in police cells is a clear example of how that process is working.
	The Government are equally committed to reducing out-of-area mental health treatment for children and young people. In-patient child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—admission is a relative rare event. At any one time, however, there are approximately 1,300 children and young people from England in CAMHS in-patient services. Services themselves are usually subdivided into different specialties, such as eating disorder units or low secure units. That means that it is highly challenging to provide complex care in all areas, and on occasion, some children and young people may need to be referred for specialist treatment at a distance from their home, if that is in the best interests of their care. However, we are committed to ensuring that that is as rare an event as possible, and much progress has already been made.

Norman Lamb: One of the recommendations from the taskforce that NHS England established to look at tier 4 services, at the number of beds required across the system and at the variability of the services was that treatment should always be contained within a region —in other words, that no child who lives in the south-west should ever go out of the south-west for treatment. I cannot remember where the child from Torbay had to go—

Kevin Foster: Berkshire.

Norman Lamb: Indeed. Is the Minister going to stick to that? Is he going to ensure that that is the objective, and will he monitor it to ensure that he meets it?

Alistair Burt: As much as possible, absolutely, yes. There will be occasions when very specialised treatment has to be given, and that will on occasion be outside the area. But apart from that, absolutely. We want to provide care that is appropriate to people in a place that is closest to where they are, as much as possible.
	In 2014, NHS England published the tier 4 CAMHS review. This found a relative shortages of beds in some regions, meaning that some children and young people had to travel long distances to access a bed, owing to an uneven distribution around the country. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was an immediate response to this: £7 million in additional funding, taking the total number of beds now to 1,440, the highest number there has ever been. In addition, NHS England has introduced new national protocols for referrals and discharge, and a new “live” bed monitoring system to make the best use of existing capacity. I am interested in whether that capacity has reference and relevance to the adult acute beds, and could it make the job of my friend the clinician doctor that bit easier?
	But while these measures have helped in the short term, we want to build on this progress still further and ensure long-term, sustainable improvements. In January this year, NHS England commenced a comprehensive review of the procurement and commissioning of inpatient beds. The aim of this is to establish the long-term requirements for inpatient services and ensure quality, sustainable services are commissioned in the right place, based on population need.
	It is not enough simply to provide more and more beds. In order to ensure that improvements are sustainable, we need to improve the community-based support we offer to children and young people. This is at the heart of the vision set out in “Future in mind”, and we are determined children and young people have easy access to the right support, from the right service, at the right time and as close to home as possible.
	Key to achieving this vision are the local area transformation plans now being put in place. CCGs have been asked to work with NHS specialist commissioning teams responsible for inpatient services in the creation of these plans.
	I have two final points. I have been interested in what data are available and what are not, and I answer a number of questions by saying, “The data for these are not collected centrally.” I am looking hard at each and every one of those questions, asking, “Are there occasions when we should be doing more on the data?” There is a lot still to do, but I entirely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
	On data, we are looking at the limitations. The right hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the problems in getting this dataset right, but, again, I am on to that; it is essential, and I will take the challenge of driving and moving on that data.
	On providers, the responsibility seems to come down to CCGs. It is unacceptable that private providers do not submit data. Some more have started submitting since the summer. It is the responsibility of CCGs, who have the contractual levers, and need to use them. That is not good enough; if we need this information, we need this information. I am going to look at whether the
	CCGs are using those contractual levers, and if not, why not. If they are not, and a sanction can be applied, we will apply the sanction. That information is necessary, and I am going to do this. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that.
	On the principle in respect of determination, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman by March next year and set out the national ambition. Do I commit to ending the practice completely? I do not know yet, because I want to get the result of the commission. It is right that it should be reduced to an absolute minimum. I want to know technically whether it is possible to eliminate it, or whether that would actually not do the job that is necessary. I want to see what the commission has to say.
	Will I drive these changes? Yes, I will. Will all providers provide data? Yes, they will. Will I commit to the £1.25 billion? Yes, I will. I have said that enough times in enough places to make this a very difficult Government commitment to slip away from. It is over the course of the next five years, but I am happy to repeat that.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience in allowing me to intervene again. I am conscious that there is a risk that the shortfall in the first year is made up in 2020 or something like that. Because of the principle of frontloading to invest in change, it would be incredibly helpful if we could get the commitment to make good the shortfall in 2016-17. Can he commit to doing that?

Alistair Burt: There are things I can do and things it is unwise to take a flyer on, standing at the Dispatch Box.

Norman Lamb: You can try.

Alistair Burt: I will try, but we need to make sure all the money is used sensibly. There are a lot of pressures on the system, and I am trying to be as bold as I can without being foolishly bold and saying things just for the sake of it. I understand the importance of this £1.25 billion. I have spoken about it a great deal; I want to see it all used. I am not responsible entirely for the timescale, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I suspect it will come up in the Opposition day debate we have next year.
	I will talk to the Secretary of State about the right hon. Gentleman’s last point about comprehensive maximum waiting times. I will see where we can go further and include it in a comprehensive letter to the right hon. Gentleman.
	I hope that this has been helpful. I am delighted that we had extra time to cover the ground. I am pleased to take up the challenge to do some of the things that could not be done in the past few years, and I will do my best to live up to the expectations of the House, as expressed by a number of Members today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.